The judiciary may have misread public sentiment by fast-tracking a process to retry a landmark ruling on the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA), lawyers said today.
Argung that a constitutional right of the people was at stake, they agreed with lawyers N Surendran and Latheefa Koya who complained yesterday that Chief Justice Ariffin Zakaria had acted hastily.
The Federal Court had on Friday ordered that the ruling handed down on April 25, which would prevent the courts from meting out criminal punishments for those failing to give a 10-day notice ahead of a protest, be reviewed again on May 27.
"This is the most important case since Merdeka... since then no judgement has gone as far as this to uphold the rights of the rakyat. It would be a great injustice if they simply rushed through the appeal," Eric Paulsen, co-founder of Lawyers for Liberty toldMalaysiakini.
Surendran and Latheefa (right) are the counsels for Selangor deputy speaker Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad, who on April 25, won a landmark Court of Appeal declaration, presided over by three judges.
Surendran said yesterday that they have not even received the Petition of Appeal.
"Definitely too fast - they must first let us know what are the grounds for the petition," Paulsen said, noting that the three separate written judgements on the Nik Nazmi case came up to over 100 pages long.
"How are we going to know which part of the judgement they are not happy with?"
Paulsen has a vested interest in the judgement as it has helped him defend three PAA cases in the last one month, with some success in the Sessions Court.
This included cases involving Solidariti Anak Muda Malaysia (SAMM) leader Badrul Hisham Shaharin and PKR MP Rafizi Ramli.
He said that he had expected the attorney-general's office to appeal that judgement, which dealt a blow to police control over peaceful protesters.
But until last Friday, the attorney-general’s chambers were wavering on what they wanted to do.
Mention changed to hearing
Paulsen said he had spotted documents drawn up by the Federal Court to the lawyers asking for May 27 to be fixed only as 'mention' date for the case.
But this letter was subsequently withdrawn and Surendran and Latheefa were informed on Friday that May 27 would be a trial date instead.
This was unusual as it didn't give leeway for the courts to check if the lawyers were available to defend their clients on that date.
When asked if there was a precedent to such sped-up cases, Paulsen (left) pointed to Anwar's Sodomy II trial on March 7, where the Court of Appeal had hearing and sentencing of the PKR defacto leader for sodomising his aide in just one day.
"We are not sure if the CJ is behind this but it looks like he has agreed to the process.
"Instead, he must ensure the integrity of the judiciary is maintained. The perception is that justice is being harmed as the case is hurried... it is a serious public confidence issue," Paulsen said.
Meanwhile, human rights lawyer Edmund Bon said that the usual process was for the petition of appeal to come out before fixing a hearing date.
Bon, who chaired the committee on constitutional law of the Malaysian Bar Council in 2009-2011, said that the court's decision on a time-frame given to lawyers were subjective, depending on the facts of the case.
But in this case, since the Federal Court could decide whether to uphold a constitutional right or not, there needed to be more voices heard.
"Since it is a matter of constitutional rights, parties should be given a chance to prepare and invite civil society to appear in court for their views," Bon (right) told Malaysiakini.
He said that a longer lead time to the hearing could then help lawyers to get political party members, Malaysian Bar Council, and human rights NGOs like the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) to testify in court about the PAA.
"Since the AG has not filed the petition of appeal, the hearing date should not have been fixed yet as Nik Nazmi's lawyers won't know which part of the judgement the AG have a problem with," Bon added.
Landmark decision
The landmark decision on PAA had come just days before what later turned out to be a massive anti-goods and services tax rally in the heart of Kuala Lumpur on May 1, attended by nearly 50,000 people from all over the nation.
Since then, there has been other attempts to undermine the judgement, lawyers said.
Solidariti Anak Muda Malaysia (SAMM) leader Badrul Hisham Shaharin, and two other members, Mohamed Bukhairy and Edy Nor Reduan were recharged on May 14 for violating the PAA even though the cases were first thrown out in January. They were discharged again.
Nik Nazmi himself was also recharged on May 6 but the Sessions Court also threw the case out based on the court of appeal’s judgement.
A few days after the May Day rally, police inspector general Khalid Abu Bakar said he would still probe rally organisers for not giving 10-days notice.
PKR's lawyer Surendran then argued that he had committed contempt of court for wrongly assuming that the judgement did not apply, pending an appeal.
Argung that a constitutional right of the people was at stake, they agreed with lawyers N Surendran and Latheefa Koya who complained yesterday that Chief Justice Ariffin Zakaria had acted hastily.
The Federal Court had on Friday ordered that the ruling handed down on April 25, which would prevent the courts from meting out criminal punishments for those failing to give a 10-day notice ahead of a protest, be reviewed again on May 27.
"This is the most important case since Merdeka... since then no judgement has gone as far as this to uphold the rights of the rakyat. It would be a great injustice if they simply rushed through the appeal," Eric Paulsen, co-founder of Lawyers for Liberty toldMalaysiakini.
Surendran and Latheefa (right) are the counsels for Selangor deputy speaker Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad, who on April 25, won a landmark Court of Appeal declaration, presided over by three judges.Surendran said yesterday that they have not even received the Petition of Appeal.
"Definitely too fast - they must first let us know what are the grounds for the petition," Paulsen said, noting that the three separate written judgements on the Nik Nazmi case came up to over 100 pages long.
"How are we going to know which part of the judgement they are not happy with?"
Paulsen has a vested interest in the judgement as it has helped him defend three PAA cases in the last one month, with some success in the Sessions Court.
This included cases involving Solidariti Anak Muda Malaysia (SAMM) leader Badrul Hisham Shaharin and PKR MP Rafizi Ramli.
He said that he had expected the attorney-general's office to appeal that judgement, which dealt a blow to police control over peaceful protesters.
But until last Friday, the attorney-general’s chambers were wavering on what they wanted to do.
Mention changed to hearing
Paulsen said he had spotted documents drawn up by the Federal Court to the lawyers asking for May 27 to be fixed only as 'mention' date for the case.
But this letter was subsequently withdrawn and Surendran and Latheefa were informed on Friday that May 27 would be a trial date instead.
This was unusual as it didn't give leeway for the courts to check if the lawyers were available to defend their clients on that date.
When asked if there was a precedent to such sped-up cases, Paulsen (left) pointed to Anwar's Sodomy II trial on March 7, where the Court of Appeal had hearing and sentencing of the PKR defacto leader for sodomising his aide in just one day."We are not sure if the CJ is behind this but it looks like he has agreed to the process.
"Instead, he must ensure the integrity of the judiciary is maintained. The perception is that justice is being harmed as the case is hurried... it is a serious public confidence issue," Paulsen said.
Meanwhile, human rights lawyer Edmund Bon said that the usual process was for the petition of appeal to come out before fixing a hearing date.
Bon, who chaired the committee on constitutional law of the Malaysian Bar Council in 2009-2011, said that the court's decision on a time-frame given to lawyers were subjective, depending on the facts of the case.
But in this case, since the Federal Court could decide whether to uphold a constitutional right or not, there needed to be more voices heard.
"Since it is a matter of constitutional rights, parties should be given a chance to prepare and invite civil society to appear in court for their views," Bon (right) told Malaysiakini.He said that a longer lead time to the hearing could then help lawyers to get political party members, Malaysian Bar Council, and human rights NGOs like the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) to testify in court about the PAA.
"Since the AG has not filed the petition of appeal, the hearing date should not have been fixed yet as Nik Nazmi's lawyers won't know which part of the judgement the AG have a problem with," Bon added.
Landmark decision
The landmark decision on PAA had come just days before what later turned out to be a massive anti-goods and services tax rally in the heart of Kuala Lumpur on May 1, attended by nearly 50,000 people from all over the nation.
Since then, there has been other attempts to undermine the judgement, lawyers said.
Solidariti Anak Muda Malaysia (SAMM) leader Badrul Hisham Shaharin, and two other members, Mohamed Bukhairy and Edy Nor Reduan were recharged on May 14 for violating the PAA even though the cases were first thrown out in January. They were discharged again.
Nik Nazmi himself was also recharged on May 6 but the Sessions Court also threw the case out based on the court of appeal’s judgement.
A few days after the May Day rally, police inspector general Khalid Abu Bakar said he would still probe rally organisers for not giving 10-days notice.
PKR's lawyer Surendran then argued that he had committed contempt of court for wrongly assuming that the judgement did not apply, pending an appeal.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.