Drama and sparks at lawyer's contempt proceedings

Testifying in contempt proceedings against him before the Federal Court in Putrajaya today, lawyer Arun Kasi maintained that he had not scandalised the courts in two articles of his published on an NGO’s website.

Though being significantly edited versions of his original articles, he said that in substance, the pieces showed that he had written them in good faith and in public interest with no intent to attack the judiciary.

The articles in question had criticised the apex court’s Nov 7, 2018 decision to expunge Court of Appeal judge Hamid Sultan Abu Backer’s dissenting judgement in the case of Leap Modulation Sdn Bhd vs PCP Construction Sdn Bhd.

In response, Attorney-General Tommy Thomas, who initiated the contempt proceedings against Arun, contended that it would be an insult to any reader of the articles to have understood it to be anything other than an attack on the judiciary.

After hearing submissions from both sides, the five-member bench set April 23 to deliver their decision. The panel was led by Justice Ramly Ali and comprised judges Rohana Yusof, Azahar Mohamed, Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat and P Nallini.

Arun Kasi

Today’s court proceedings were interrupted by a total of four breaks following several heated exchanges.

The hearing began with Arun’s lead counsel V Bastian asking for an adjournment on grounds that his client needed to tend to his daughter who had been admitted to hospital.

The judges dismissed the application after a short break but were again asked to call for another recess by Bastian, explaining that he needed more time to prepare Arun for his oral evidence submission.

When the court resumed, Arun was cautioned by the judges to speak only on relevant points not already mentioned in his affidavit.

After Arun repeatedly mentioned that his articles were in the public interest and to seek reform of the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC), the judges again cautioned him to stay on course.

Justice Ramly eventually instructed Arun to “step down now” from the witness stand and called for a lunch break.

When hearing resumed, Thomas submitted that Arun had never asked the NGO to correct his articles despite him claiming they were different from his original statements.

In both Arun’s original statement and the published articles, Thomas argued that he had “crossed the line” and committed contempt of court when he suggested that the Federal Court’s decision to expunge Hamid’s dissenting judgement warranted an investigation by the MACC.

The proceedings came to yet another halt after Bastian responded to this by saying the Federal Court had indeed erred in their Nov 7 decision. This caused several of the judges to ask Bastian if he was aware of the seriousness of his allegation.

“I call for a stand down and will give you 10 minutes to cool down,” Justice Ramly told Bastian.

When the session re-convened, Bastian submitted that Arun, in his articles, was not calling for the MACC to probe the three Federal Court judges who made the Nov 7 decision but had called attention to the intervention by the AIAC into the case.

Even if Arun’s comments were considered scandalous, Bastian argued that the allegations, which arose from Hamid’s affidavit for another case, had already been reported by other news outlets before his client’s articles were published.

“So it is okay to undermine public confidence in the judiciary because public confidence had already been undermined? Is that Arun Kasi’s position?” asked Justice Nallini.

Thomas then stressed that Arun’s criticism had been directed at the courts and no other body.

“It is insulting the intelligence of the readers of the article and the press release (to believe) that the attack was on the MACC (or the AIAC). It was an attack on the judiciary,” the attorney-general who appeared visibly upset when pointing out to the bench where Arun had criticised the courts.

This prompted lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla, a member of Arun’s legal team, to urge the attorney-general to not “get personal” with his submissions.

Thomas responded by saying officers of the courts ought to administer the truth when carrying out their jobs.

He also argued that even if other news articles had commented on allegations contained in Hamid’s “notorious” affidavit, Arun could not be allowed to scandalise the courts in his articles on the NGO’s website.  - Mkini