And the prosecutor, Gopal Sri Ram, can confirm that Malaysian judges can be bought and will do what “upstairs” instructs them to do. But then there are a few judges (in particular those who are Muslim and are close to retirement age) who know that Islam says the first people to enter hell are judges. These judges may do the right thing out of fear of burning in hell.
Under Britain’s law, in a criminal proceeding, hearsay evidence will only be admissible if all parties to the proceedings agree to it being admissible, or the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for it to be admissible.
In Najib Tun Razak’s 1MDB trial, his lawyer, Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, raised the issue of hearsay. Much of the testimony thus far has been on the basis of he told me that she told him that they received instructions from…etc. This is like according to Peter, who got it from Paul, who was told by John, that James heard Jesus say (whatever it was) 200 years ago.
Did anyone who is testifying actually hear it from the horse’s mouth? No! They heard it from someone who heard it from the horse’s mouth. But that “someone” who allegedly heard it from the horse’s mouth is not in court to testify that not only did he or she hear it from the horse’s mouth but he/she did inform the person who is testifying about it.
In that case, I, too, can go to court and testify that a relative of that young man who Zuraida Kamaruddin brings with her when she travels overseas told me that the young man is Zuraida’s toy-boy and that Zuraida is his sugar-mummy. If I make such an allegation and Zuraida sues me in court, and I use that “a relative of that young man told me…” as my defence, I am going to lose my case unless I can get that “relative of that young man” to testify that he did indeed inform me about it.
No one has testified so far that they witnessed Najib committing a crime but only heard it from others
Malaysians do not seem to understand that “evidence” needs to be tangible, whether oral or documentary. When people like Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Lim Kit Siang, Lim Guan Eng, Tony Pua, Rafizi Ramli, etc., call Najib a thief, that is slander. Has Najib been convicted? No! He may have been charged but that does not mean he is guilty. Hence any allegation against Najib would be slander.
If someone tells you he or she has evidence that Najib is a thief, where is that evidence? If it is oral evidence and not documentary evidence, then he or she must be a witness to that thievery. If he or she merely heard the story from another person, then that does not constitute evidence. It is just a rumour, like the story about sugar-mummy Zuraida and her toy-boy. And if you repeat that story you are spreading rumours and in Islam can be punished with 80 lashes of the cane.
Hence, coming back to Najib’s 1MDB trial, unless those people testifying are witnesses to the crime and not merely relating what they heard, or what someone else not in court told them, then it is not admissible.
Gopal Sri Ram can tell you that Malaysian judges can be bought and will do what “upstairs” instructs them to do
Nevertheless, the defence (or the prosecution) can protest and argue that the story the witness is relating is hearsay and hence is not admissible. But ultimately the judge needs to rule whether it is admissible or not. And if the judge says that hearsay evidence can be accepted, then Najib may end up in jail. But if the judge rejects hearsay as not tangible evidence, and hence is not admissible, then Najib walks free.
And the prosecutor, Gopal Sri Ram, can confirm that Malaysian judges can be bought and will do what “upstairs” instructs them to do. But then there are a few judges (in particular those who are Muslim and are close to retirement age) who know that Islam says the first people to enter hell are judges. These judges may do the right thing out of fear of burning in hell.
Raja Petra Kamarudin
– ww.malaysia-today.net
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.