The sin of lying vs accused’s right under the law

 

Nazri Aziz says his conscience will prevent him from being a lying lawyer, while Karen Cheah argues that any accused person has the right to be defended by counsel.

GEORGE TOWN: Former law minister Nazri Aziz and Bar Council president Karen Cheah are at odds over a mufti’s condemnation of lawyers as sinners if they defend criminals in full knowledge of their guilt.

Nazri gave his support to the mufti’s view, saying his conscience was important to him and it would prevent him from being a lying lawyer.

Cheah said any accused person retained the right to be defended by a lawyer and added that this was a fundamental right under the Federal Constitution.

Last Tuesday, Perlis mufti Asri Zainul Abidin, referring to concerns raised by some lawyers about having to defend the guilty, said Islam forbade Muslims from protecting wrongdoers and it would be sinful to accept service payments from them.

Accepting money from offenders would be worse than earning an income from prostitution, he added.

Speaking to FMT, Nazri acknowledged the principle of innocence until proven guilty, but he said Muslim lawyers should follow the dictates of their conscience.

He said he would feel “caught in between” if he had to defend a person he knew to be guilty.

“It would force me to cook up stories, lie, create doubts and poke holes,” he said. “I don’t think I can do that. To me, my conscience is more important. If a person is guilty and I defend him, I will be doing so at the victim’s expense.

“I want to be a lawyer, not a liar.”

Nazri also said the law did not prevent a person from representing himself or herself in court and this negated the need for a lawyer if the person had broken the law.

Cheah said lawyers did not prejudge a case and would merely argue the facts of a case before a judge.

“To prejudge a case would go against the grain that a person is innocent until proven guilty,” she said. “Without a lawyer, an accused person may be at a disadvantage in knowing what to do in court and putting forward the best defence.

“It is the duty of the lawyer to raise any discrepancy found in a charge against the accused within the confines of the law, which may lead to questioning the validity of the charge itself. But the ultimate adjudicator is the court.”

Lawyer Rafique Rashid Ali agreed with Cheah, saying the presumption of innocence was a basic principle of criminal law.

He said a lawyer’s duty, regardless of his religious affiliation, “is to ensure that the evidence is properly tendered and that there is no miscarriage of justice and to ensure that the accused’s defence, his version, is put forward during the trial.”

He said the prosecution could not be given a free hand to present evidence without being challenged by a defence lawyer.

Law minister Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar has also reacted to Asri’s statement. He said only judges had the authority to declare a person’s guilt or innocence, not lawyers. - FMT