Several conspiracy theories have emerged over the past 24 hours after the affidavit and statutory declaration (SD) by convicted killer Azilah Hadri became public knowledge.
Malaysians have had their say and will continue to air their views. But there has also been a fair share of wild and unsubstantiated claims. To make it worse, there have been personal attacks and character assassinations on unrelated issues.
Some argued and presented their case logically while some were preposterous and over-generous with their imagination and words to say the least.
Nevertheless, the alleged key protagonists in this sordid affair of the killing of Altantuya Shaaribuu and events that followed have chosen to take a back seat and maintain their deafening silence except for Najib Abdul Razak who described Azilah's allegations as a complete fabrication and a political plot to silence him.
A revisit of the archives will help rekindle some memories of the trial - a change of judges at the High Court, the successful appeal by the accused Azilah and Sirul Azhar Umar at the Court of Appeal and the decision of the highest court in the land - the Federal Court - which reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and reinstated their death sentences.
Amidst the lively online discussion and coffee-shop talk, the line that has to be adopted is that everyone is entitled to an opinion. These may differ but the right to agree or disagree is a given.
Therefore, it came as a surprise when lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon, who is acting for Abdul Razak Baginda in a civil suit filed by the Mongolian national's family, sought the attorney-general's intervention.
“The matter concerns and impacts an ongoing Shah Alam High Court civil suit and is in the circumstances sub judice. The attorney-general who is involved in the civil suit should immediately take steps and institute contempt proceedings against all and everyone who is coming out with these statements and prejudicing that trial,” he said.
The issue of sub judice and contempt have been visited upon by our courts on many occasions and unless there is a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice or scandalise the court or its officers, they are ignored.
However, the concept of freedom of speech and expression are fundamental liberties guaranteed under our constitution. But these must be exercised responsibly.
Having said that, Joe Public does not have access to the voluminous court documents and may not be able to digest and understand the legalese to come to an educated conclusion.
Hence, many publications and news portals (Malaysiakini included) exercise caution and responsibility when publishing court reports and related applications.
The rule of thumb that is often used is that once it is filed in court, it becomes a “public document.”
Looking back at the continuing trial in A Santamil Selvi and others v Najib Abdul Razak and others, an SD signed by the late private investigator P Balasubramaniam containing the following was read out in open court as part of the evidence.
Bala avered: “During this discussion and in an attempt to persuade me to continue my employment with him, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that:
- He had been introduced to Aminah (Altantuya) by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.
- Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Aminah.
- Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak wanted Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Aminah as he did not want her to harass him since he was now the deputy prime minister.
- Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had all been together at a dinner in Paris.
- Aminah wanted money from him as she felt she was entitled to a USD$500,000 commission on a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris.”
Balasubramaniam has died but his SD forms part of the evidence supporting his widow and children's claim.
It has to be made clear that Balasubramaniam's widow's case is different and independent of the review application made by Azilah. But we cannot run away from the fact that the contents of the SD are inter-connected with the application.
But the accuracy, authenticity and truthfulness of these statements will eventually have to be ascertained by a judge - not us or any hotshot lawyer.
Surely, this would not be contemptuous because reporting of court proceedings (including the colourful details) are privileged. Unless such documents and selected paragraphs are expunged by a court of law, they remain on record.
Therefore, Manjeet's assertion that action be taken against those “coming out with these statements and prejudicing the trial” cannot possibly be applicable to news reports which project a fair report on court proceedings or other matters in court.
In this case, Malaysiakini just reported the truth without touching on or making comments outside the ambit of the review application and the SD.
At the end of it all, it is our responsibility to give readers a fair and accurate report after which they will be able to digest the facts and come to an educated decision. Nothing more, nothing less.
R NADESWARAN sees the need to put issues in the right perspective in view of all kinds of statements that have been made on Azrul’s application. Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.