`


THERE IS NO GOD EXCEPT ALLAH
read:
MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku

LOVE MALAYSIA!!!





Friday, August 31, 2018

MALAYSIA’S ‘KANGAROO COURTS’ CONUNDRUM HITS CRITICAL STAGE: ‘I WILL ONLY REVEAL NAME OF JUDGE WHO MEDDLED IN KARPAL’S SEDITION APPEAL TO RCI’ – LAWYER TELLS COPS

PETALING JAYA – The lawyer who claimed that a senior judge had meddled in the late Karpal Singh’s sedition appeal in 2016 says he is only willing to identify the person if the claim is investigated by a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI).
Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla had earlier created a sensation when he charged that Karpal’s sedition appeal (which went ahead after his death in 2014) two years ago was altered due to judicial interference by a senior judge.
His revelation led Karpal Singh’s daughter, Sangeet Kaur Deo, to lodge a police report on Aug 23 over the issue, urging the police to investigate Haniff’s allegation of judicial interference which resulted in Karpal’s sedition conviction.
Haniff said he had given his statement to the police on Thursday (Aug 30) following Sangeet’s police report.
In a Facebook post, Haniff said he did not reveal the identity of the judge or the source of information to the police when giving his statement as he believed the only appropriate forum to investigate the matter fairly was through an RCI.
“I also informed the police officer that I was prepared to name the source who gave me the information to a special task force prior to the establishment of the RCI, as well as during its proceedings when it is convened,” he said.
Haniff urged de facto law minister Datuk Liew Vui Keong to set up a special task force and an RCI accordingly.
On Feb 21, 2014, the High Court found Karpal guilty of sedition for questioning the removal of Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as Perak Mentri Besar by the Sultan of Perak.
On May 30, 2016, the Court of Appeal, in a majority decision, upheld the sedition conviction ruling that it was a serious offence involving the sovereignty of a Ruler and his prerogative powers.
The court, however, reduced the quantum of his fine from RM4,000 to RM1,800.
– ANN

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.