Rightists ridicule lawyer for justifying “it’s procedural, not bias” that Zamri was cuffed, Arun wasn’t

 

“JUSTICE must not only be done but seen to be done”. This oft quoted phrase means that judicial proceedings must be impartial and transparent, and that the law is seen to be applied fairly without prejudice.

This very notion that “everyone is equal before the law” has recently come under scrutiny with the arrest of a couple of prominent activists (or rabble rousers depending on one’s perspective).

Both Muslim convert preacher Zamri Vinoth who is also co-founder of Gerakan Anti Rumah Anutan Haram (GARAH) and Hindu activist Arun Doraisamy were hauled up to court for offences under Section 505 (b) of the Penal Code.

Both pleaded not guilty with Zamri, 42, charged at the Kuala Lumpur Magistrate’s Court in relation to the organisation of a rally in front of SOGO Kuala Lumpur last month while Arun, 56, was charged at the Jawi Magistrate’s Court in mainland Penang for an Instagram video threatening a street protest against Zamri.

There has been no shortage of public outcry at the perceived difference in treatment of the defendants with Zamri hauled up to court in hand cuffs whereas Arun’s wrists were decidedly shackle-free.

This perception of bias was given more credence with the appearance of DAP’s Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) M. Kulasegaran who was seen ‘escorting’ Arun for his day in court, a move which Malay DAP leaders/lawmakers have distanced themselves from.

Technicality of case

Thankfully, a legal eagle has stepped forward to offer an explanation for this apparent miscarriage of justice.

In a Facebook post aptly entitled “Kelas Undang-undang” (Lesson On Law), civil and criminal lawyer Asiah Jalil said the difference does not necessarily stem from unfair treatment but rather is linked to police arrest and investigation procedures.

“Try looking at the date of the offences – Arun Dorasamy on March 12, 2025 which was ONE YEAR ago while Zamri on February 3, 2026 which was ONE MONTH ago,” revealed the Kuantan-based legal practitioner. practitioner.

Given that the Arun had allegedly committed the offence a year or so ago, the Temple Preservation Action Team (TEPAT) chairman would had gone through the arrest and investigation process earlier than Zamri who was charged over a statement he allegedly made in February this year.

“So do you understand now why Arun went to court without handcuffs while Zamri was handcuffed?” asked the sole proprietor of Asiah Abd Jalil Law Chambers.

“I believe Arun would have been arrested last year while Zamri had yet to have any arrest report prior to this.”

Editor’s Note: Moreover, Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Datuk Seri Mohd Khalid Ismail said Zamri was brought to court in handcuffs on Tuesday (March 17) in accordance with legal procedures and regulations.

This is given Zamri’s initial arrest involved a case under Section 505 of the Penal Code and he is also being investigated under the Sedition Act 1948 which requires a different procedural approach.

“The offences for which we made previous arrests vary. Some are bailable and some are not, particularly during the early stage of the arrests involving four cases in Putrajaya under Section 505 of the Penal Code.

“At the same time, there are cases under the Sedition Act that require their own specific procedures,” he told a media conference today (March 19).

Asiah’s opinion was also shared on Malaysiakini’s Facebook page which has generated 688 likes, 468 comments and 49 shares at time of publication.

This was when the less-than-positive perception of the justice system as well as of law enforcement in the country was reflected in various comments.

One apparent criminal law expert disagreed with the lawyer’s explanation vehemently, politely requesting that she refrain from “talking c*** during Ramadhan”. It was claimed that the procedure should be the same for all accused.

According to certain commenters, the main issue is NOT the cuffs per se but the presence of a DAP lawmaker who happens to be a Deputy Law Minister at Arun’s court appearance.

One commenter sought to apply a common-sense view by suggesting that Arun had surrendered himself willingly while Zamri was not traceable at the relevant time.

The hypocrisy of certain commenters was also highlighted. Why no complaints when Bossku Datuk Seri Najib Razak was allowed to appear in court sans orange boiler suit or handcuffs, asked a couple of obviously irritated observers.

It is very clear from the many comments, the issue becomes blurred when emotions run high and are coloured by racial undertones till the extent that a legal expert’s opinion is dismissed willy-nilly. 

-focus malaysia