If the AGC could rely on witness testimony and dashcam footage to charge the driver in the first case for murder, why was a similar methodology not applied in the other two cases?
From P Ramasamy
Attorney-General Dusuki Mokhtar must explain the apparent inconsistency in charging drivers under the influence who are involved in fatal accidents.
In one case involving the death of warehouse and delivery worker Amirul Hafiz Omar, the driver was charged with murder.
However, in two other cases involving the deaths of a family and a couple, the drivers were not charged with murder despite being allegedly under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or both.
In defending the murder charge against 28-year-old R Sakthyaganapathy, Dusuki said witness testimony and dashcam footage showed that the driver deliberately drove against traffic, fully aware that he posed a danger to other road users.
However, in the other two recent cases, resulting in the deaths of three family members in one incident, and a couple in another, the drivers were charged only with dangerous driving, not murder.
What happened to the witness testimony and dashcam footage in both these accidents?
If the Attorney-General’s Chambers could rely on witness testimony and dashcam footage to charge the driver in the first case for murder, why was a similar methodology not applied in the other two cases?
It seems that the AGC prefers to prioritise some cases, and not others, for reasons known only to themselves.
As the public guardian, the AGC should be fair and objective when it comes to investigating fatal accidents in the country.
Too many innocent lives have been lost due to the irresponsibility of certain drivers who drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
I agree with Dusuki that every case should be investigated thoroughly. But I am not sure whether the other two cases were.
I am not sure whether the law enforcement authorities in the country function in accordance with the publicity generated.
I’m not convinced that more publicity means a case is investigated more thoroughly.
I am not sure whether the publicity generated in the first case was much more than the two other cases.
Whatever Dusuki might say about the application of the law, there is an impression that some fatal accidents are investigated much more thoroughly than others.
Why this is so remains a mystery. - FMT
P Ramasamy is Urimai chairman and a former Penang deputy chief minister II.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.