Police silence on attacks against judiciary deafening

 

On Wednesday, we mark the 65th anniversary of Malaysia as a sovereign nation. We must be thankful to our past leaders who tirelessly paved the way for an independent Malaya - from decades of being ruled by Whitehall in London.

Various activities have been earmarked to celebrate this auspicious occasion, with the theme being “Keluarga Malaysia Teguh Bersama”.

However, sad to say, a section of gullible Malaysians has been asked to adopt new phrases unlike the rest of the nation.

“Fair trial” and “royal pardon” have become the keywords of this minority who do not understand or prefer not to understand the mechanics and workings of the judicial system.

Led by cheerleaders masquerading as officers of the law and politicians who have their own agenda, they are encouraging certain sections of the populace to provide chorus to the lead performers.

Specifically, these phrases are linked to the punishment imposed on disgraced former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak, who last week began his 12-year prison term for misuse of money and power and related offences.

Najib was first convicted by the High Court and his appeal to the Court of Appeal was unanimously dismissed. One of the judges remarked that he was a national embarrassment.

Two weeks before his appeal to the Federal Court was to be heard, he changed horses, discharging his lawyers who represented him in the lower courts.

The new team made two applications – one to adduce so-called fresh evidence and two, to seek an adjournment of up to four months.

Both were dismissed, and off to Kajang Prison Najib went. Now, his supporters claim he was not given a fair trial and claimed that the High Court judge was biased.

Spin doctoring

Mobs turned up at Istana Negara demanding an immediate royal pardon and the removal of certain members of the Bench.

Getting a pardon is not like preparing instant noodles. It does not come instantaneously. Those clamouring for it have to look at past cases of the late former Selangor menteri besar Harun Idris, the late former youth and sports minister Mokhtar Hashim, and the more recent case of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim.

Yesterday, the tempo reached a crescendo, with many “explaining” the legalities which led to Najib’s conviction.

Muhammed Shafee Abdullah, who was Najib’s lead defence counsel before he was discharged at the Federal Court, continued the saga of the Arab donation which was already demolished as a concoction of lies.

The Court of Appeal judges who upheld Najib’s conviction when his appeal came before their bench, lead judge Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil, Has Zanah Mehat, and Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera, said Najib’s claims of the Arab donations were “unbelievable”.

Judge Karim noted: “On the defence of the Arab donations, as alluded earlier, we agree with the learned trial judge that the Arab donation story is nothing more than a concoction that is completely bereft of any credibility.

“There is no evidence at all that the RM42 million came from, or could have come from the Saudi royal family, nor is there any reasonable basis for the appellant to have formed that belief.”

Was Shafee flogging a dead horse? As a layman, one has to ask: If the Arab ruler intended to donate, why would the money come in a circuitous route before ending up in a Singapore bank before ending up in Najib’s account? Wouldn’t the money have been transferred directly from Riyadh to Kuala Lumpur?

Bordering sedition

Also, yesterday, a slew of politicians took to the stage. Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, who had previously declared that the Federal Court’s decision to reject Najib’s application to adduce fresh evidence could “erode the integrity of the judiciary”, advanced a new “outcome”.

His newfound unfounded theory took another step – this time saying that the SRC International case will soon be referenced by Commonwealth nations as an unfair trial.

How did he arrive at such a conclusion? But then, when you are talking to your party members who are not well-versed with the judicial procedures, anything goes.

Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat and Court of Appeal judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali, the latter of whom presided over Najib’s at the High Court and found him guilty, bore the brunt of unwarranted attacks.

Some of the utterances cannot be repeated because they bordered on breaching the Sedition Act.

Sections 2 and 3(1) of the Sedition Act state that any act, speech, words or publication is seditious if they have a tendency towards any of the following, including bringing into hatred or contempt the administration of justice in the country.

Surely, the police who are quick to arrest Ahmad, Ah Chong, and Muthu at the drop of a hat when seditious words are spoken, have suddenly tied their hands themselves.

Lest I am accused of claiming the police are biased, let’s ask if politicians like PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang, Zahid, and others can go on inciting hatred among the people. Have they been given carte blanche to say anything and everything?

Anyway, folks, Happy Merdeka. - Mkini

---

R NADESWARAN is a veteran journalist who writes on bread-and-butter issues. Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.