Why can’t Rosli have his say in court?

by Din Merican

Please see the news report below from The New Straits Times on the Court allowing the Attorney-General’s Chambers (‘A-GC’) to expunge several questions in Lawyer Rosli Dahlan’s witness statements. The mainstream media is so quick to report whenever the A-GC scores a point against him. But they will black out any news of his success and victories against the A-GC or the government.

My readers will remember that in 2007 just one day before Hari Raya AidilFitri, Lawyer  Rosli (left) was brutalised by the MACC before being dragged into court on a trumped up charge by the MACC under instructions of A-G Gani Patail.

Even then, Lawyer Rosli had informed Judge SM Komathy that this was a conspiracy to smear his name and humiliate him (see the NST report of that time) and swore that he would fight the charge to show his innocence.

He then launched this RM50 million law suit for criminal conspiracy, wrongful arrest, assault and defamation against the most powerful UMNO-owned newspaper, Utusan Malaysia, the MACC, the Government and various MACC officers whom he called the ‘rogues in government”. That is the case that is coming to trial only now, after considerable lapse of time. Why? Because the A-G and the MACC want to punish him.

In retaliation, the MACC dragged the criminal case against Lawyer Rosli for over 5 years. Over that period, Dato Ramli Yusuff was acquitted by the various courts. Despite that, the MACC pursued the case against Laywer Rosli. When he was acquitted, A-G Gani Patail directed that an appeal should be made. Then on August 2, 2012, Lawyer Rosli filed an explosive affidavit disclosing how the MACC Director of Prosecution, Dato Razak Musa tried to coax himi to drop his RM50 million lawsuit.

Lawyer Rosli’s affidavit also exhibited a Statutory Declaration by Tan Sri Robert Phangwho exposed that the MACC Chief Commissioner, Dato Seri Abu Kassim, had admitted that there was no case against Rosli but A-G Gani Patail would not allow the case to be dropped.

 So, just when his RM50 million trial is about to start, the A-GC commences filing all kinds of applications to block a fair trial. Gani Patail wants the trial to be conducted the way he wants it, and not the way it should be. They want to dictate how Lawyer Rosli can present his evidence. They want the trial to be on their turf and according to their rules. Basically, they want it all their way no matter what.

And as you know, that means it would not be a level playing field. It is like a boxing match where one boxer is asked to wear a heavily padded gloves with mouthpiece or face protector but the other boxer is allowed to put on a knuckle duster and wears a full padded suit like an American football player.

Is that a fair fight? Of course not!

Thus, the NST report below came as no surprise to me when technicalities, by calling Lawyer Rosli’s witness testimonies as “hearsay and irrelevant evidence”, are being used to prevent his side of the  story from being told in open court. Some of my legal eagle friends are perplexed that the Judge could rule that the Rosli’s evidence in his witness statement was not pleaded in his statement of claim.

 They tell me that the court document called a “pleading” which is a Statement of Claim is supposed to just state the brief facts of the claim and not the evidence or the law. The evidence will be presented when the witness like Rosli comes to court and tells his story by way of witness testimony. And yet, Rosli is prevented from doing this. What is wrong, Judge?

Preventing Rosli from telling his story by ruling that it is irrelevant even before he has the chance of saying it reminds me of the late Judge Augustine Paul who kept ruling “Irrelevant” against Counsel Christopher Fernando during Anwar Ibrahim’s trial. In the end, the Good Lord rendered Augustine Paul irrelevant by burying him six feet underground.

If I didn’t know Lawyer Rosli  better, I would have told him not to be wasting his time fighting for lost causes. He is better off joining the ranks of the UMNO cronies. He can then sit comfortably and reap the fruits of being an UMNOputra lawyer. Even the non-Malay Tan Sri lawyer who prepared the false PI Bala’s second  SD knows how to play ball.

But not this resolute Lawyer Rosli. Many think that either he is too idealistic or he is just a plain fool by hoping to vindicate his name through the courts. Many have said that after Lawyer Rosli was acquitted in 2011 and the A-G made a last minute withdrawal of the criminal appeal against him, Lawyer Rosli should have just walked away quietly and continue with his life peacefully. But he persisted.

So the predictable thing would happen now. They will tire Lawyer Rosli down, make him incur astronomical legal costs, drag the case, make technical objections to delay the case as they are doing now, and after all that, they will still not allow Lawyer Rosli to take the witness stand and tell his side of the story. And Malaysians will never know what  Lawyer Rosli is going to say in court.  That is pretty obvious to us.

I tried to call Rosli after reading the NST news, but he did not answer. I called him again countless times even as I am writing this piece, but my calls kept going to his voice mail. I can understand that Lawyer Rosli may be feeling very down. He must be tired by the hurdles and obstacles that are placed before him to frustrate his attempt to vindicate himself and seek accountability from those who have wronged him. I feel sorry for him.

But I know Rosli well enough to know that when he wakes up tomorrow, he will say Lawan Tetap Lawan!

03, 2013, 22:39 PM

Matters considered heresy, irrelevant expunged from Rosli Dahlan’s witness statement

By V. Anbalagan 

KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court has allowed an application by the government toexpunge several questions from the witness statement of corporate lawyer Rosli Dahlan who is seeking damages for unlawful arrest and subsequent prosecution over his failure to disclose information on his assets.

Judge Datuk Hue Siew Kheng made the ruling in her chambers today.Senior Federal Counsel Azizan Md Arshad told reporters that the judge said the questions were hearsay and irrelevant, and Rosli did not plead those matters (as in the witness statement) in his statement of claim.

Azizan said the judge also dismissed a preliminary objection by Rosli’s counsel Chetan Jethwani that he (Azizan) had no locus standi to depose on the government’s affidavit while he was also the counsel.

The lawyer had submitted that the usual practice was that such document would be affirmed by another senior officer.

 Azizan is acting for the government and eight other  Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers.

The government had earlier filed an application to delete the questions in the witness statement.

Trial will begin on January 25.

 Rosli had in 2009 filed a RM50 million suit against 17 parties, including senior MACC officers and the government claiming he was wrongfully arrested by the MACC, despite the agency being aware that investigations on his client, former Commercial Crime Investigation Department Director Datuk Ramli Yusoff, were ongoing.

He further alleged that a check on his financial position carried out by a Bank Negara officer under the Anti-Money Laundering Act was also improper.

The lawyer claimed that the MACC opted to prosecute him despite his offer under oath to provide the details asked for in its notices to him.

The Sessions Court had earlier acquitted Rosli without calling for his defence on a charge of failure to disclose information on his assets.

A-G moves to silence Rosli on roles of Gani, Musa

Source:http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/215362

In a bid to silence Lawyer Rosli Dahlan, the Attorney-General’s Chambers today objected to him giving evidence on matters pertaining to the ‘Copgate affair’ involving Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail and former Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan.

Rosli applied to Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Hue Siew Kheng, in chambers, to allow him to read his witness statement in open court, which the judge allowed. However, Rosli’s lawyer Chethan Jethwani said, senior federal counsel Azizan Md Arshad, representing the officers from the (then) Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) and the government, objected to certain portions of Rosli’s testimony.

Following this, Justice Hue fixed December 28 to hear submissions on the matter and ordered Azizan to file a formal application to expunge those portions before the application is heard on that day. The judge also fixed January 25 for to hear Rosli’s testimony.

Azizan argued that third parties were named in the statement of the witness, which waswhy the AG’s Chambers was objecting. It is learnt that the objection arose because Rosli’s testimony would touch on the role of Musa and Gani (right) in Rosli’s charge of not complying with the ACA’s procedures to declare his assets, before the sessions court in 2007, on which he was acquitted without his defence called.

Rosli, 51, had named several officers in the ACA, the precursor to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, including present Chief Commissioner Abu Kassim Mohamed and Deputy Head of Prosecution Anthony Kevin Morais, as defendants in his RM50 million defamation suit. He had also named UMNO-owned daily Utusan Malaysia and its senior editor Mohd Zaini Hassan.

The lawyer, who had represented former Commercial Crime Investigations Department Director Ramli Yusuff, in is seeking damages over defamatory statements made, the injury to his reputation, assault and false imprisonment.

Ramli, who was later charged by the ACA, was also acquitted of the five charges against him and the decision was further upheld by the High Court and Court of Appeal.

Yesterday, Justice Hue had called on the parties to try and settle the case and to take into account the decisions made by the other courts.

‘Arrest of Goh an act of disloyalty’ 

Rosli in his writ described the acrimonious relationship between Ramli and Musa and how the IGP had used the ACA and the A-G’s Chambers to implicate him and Ramli following the arrest of an underworld kingpin, Goh Cheng Poh or ‘Tengku Goh’.

Rosli said he acted for Ramli and the then Deputy Home Minister Johari Baharom against Goh’s habeas corpus application in 2007, after the A-G’s Chambers refused to draw up their affidavits.

He said Musa (left) saw the arrest of Goh as disloyalty on the part of Ramli, resulting in the IGP initiating further ACA investigations against Ramli. This resulted in a strained relationship between Musa and Ramli and Johari.

Rosli further claimed that he earned the wrath of Musa and the Attorney-General when he drew up the affidavits for Ramli and Johari, and this led to the ACA investigations against him and his subsequent arrest.

He said an ACA officer kicked his leg, twisted his arms and handcuffed him tightly, resulting in lacerations and swelling of his wrists.

He gave his statement at the ACA Hadquarters, but was held overnight and taken to court and charged on the eve of Hari Raya, on October 27, 2007. These were malicious actions out to tarnish his image, he added in his writ.