Former Umno leader Lokman Noor Adam’s right to freedom of speech does not justify threatening witnesses in Najib Abdul Razak’s RM2.28 billion corruption trial, the court heard today.
Deputy public prosecutor Gopal Sri Ram submitted this before the Kuala Lumpur High Court during the hearing of the prosecution’s committal bid against the former party supreme council member.
The contempt application is over two 2019 alleged incidents involving Amhari Efendi Nazaruddin, who was a former special officer of Najib.
Amhari had testified for the prosecution in the ongoing RM2.28 billion 1MDB corruption trial against former prime minister Najib.
The first incident was on Sept 25, 2019, where Lokman allegedly uttered words in a video interview, amounting to an express or implied threat against Amhari, for testifying against the former prime minister.
The second incident was also purportedly on the same day, in relation to Lokman lodging a police report against Amhari, in relation to the oral evidence given by him at the 1MDB trial.
During proceedings before judge Collin Lawrence Sequerah, Sri Ram submitted that the complaint against Lokman is a serious matter as it involved intimidation of witnesses.
The DPP contended that the words contained in the police report and the video interview amounted to an attack not only on Amhari but the court itself in relation to Najib’s 1MDB case.
Sri Ram submitted that a person cannot justify threatening acts against court witnesses by relying on the fundamental freedom of free speech.
“He (Lokman) relying on his right to freedom of speech does not include threatening my witnesses and attacking and asking the court to dismiss the (1MDB) charge against the accused (Najib).
“I respectfully submit that this is a proper case for your lordship to convict (respondent Lokman) as there is abundant evidence from the witness and attempt to interfere in the administration of justice."
The DPP then pointed out that both the police report and the video interview contained an invitation for Sequerah to halt the trial against Najib.
“He (Lokman) had requested for the trial against Najib be stopped as the case is rubbish and the actual wrongdoer is Jho Low.
“Not difficult to see what is the target of the commentary, the target is the trial itself.
“If your lordship is trying the (1MDB) case, we submit the (contempt) case encloses fair inference that the respondent (Lokman) intended to interfere with the administration of justice.
“This is fortified by the other statement in his (Lokman) interview,” Sri Ram contended.
Lokman’s counsel Muhammad Shafee Abdullah however countered that the contempt application ought to be dismissed as the show cause notice to Lokman allegedly did not state critical details of the purported contemptuous acts.
The lawyer contended that the prosecution cannot rely on the affidavit in support of details on the alleged contemptuous acts, claiming that the pertinent details should already be contained in the show cause notice itself.
“Amhari also never complained by running to the prosecution and say he has been threatened,” Shafee claimed, submitting that it was the prosecution who initiated first the committal bid against Lokman.
Sequerah then fixed June 15 at 2.30pm to deliver his decision on whether Lokman has committed contempt of court.
If found to have been in contempt, Lokman could face either a fine or jail term. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.