On any working day, you will see prisoners being brought to court for their pending cases. They are attired in an all-white prison uniform, handcuffed and accompanied escorted by one warden, sometimes more. When the court adjourns or the case is disposed of, they are usually sent to court lock-up, and while waiting for transport back to prison, they are served nasi bungkus.
But there’s one prisoner who comes in a suit, a pressed shirt and a matching tie. He arrives and returns in an air-conditioned SUV at the end of each day’s proceedings. This is because Najib Abdul Razak, who is serving a 12-year jail term, was once our prime minister and the Prison Department has used its discretion to proffer these “privileges”.
But his lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah denied that he is special. “No, you will be surprised if he’s special, they don’t even give him a room here (in the courthouse) for him to sit down and eat,” he said.
But Malay Mail reported that Najib is believed to have been placed in a holding room attached to the courtroom during breaks in the court proceeding. He is also believed to have his meals inside there. His family members have also been seen going in and out of the holding room where he is placed on many occasions.
But yesterday, Najib upped the ante through his legal team - giving Home Minister Hamzah Zainudin an ultimatum that he has until noon today to respond to their appeal for Najib to be allowed to attend the current sitting of Parliament. Otherwise, Shafee charged that Najib’s legal team would file a legal action to allow the lawmaker to do so.
His grouse is that the Prison director-general (whose name was not mentioned) did not allow Najib to attend the Dewan Rakyat on grounds of security.
For good measure, Shafee said if a judicial review is filed, then it would be the first such legal action in Malaysia as it could allow any lawmaker who has been convicted and sentenced but still has other related pending due processes (such as a review bid before the apex court or an application before the Pardons Board) to continue to serve his or her constituency as a lawmaker.
By all standards, it is an outrageous stipulation which borders on contempt and disrespect of the judicial system.
The rules are simple. Any prisoner under detention needs an order to be produced in court or any other place. When he is produced, he must be handcuffed and security personnel must escort him as he is not a free man - he is not under a remand order but serving a sentence in a gazetted prison.
Remember Operation Lallang in 1987? Among those detained under the now-repealed Internal Security Act (ISA) were several MPs including the late Karpal Singh, the late V David, the late P Patto, Lim Kit Siang and Lim Guan Eng.
They were never allowed to visit their constituency to deal with problems of the voters. Instead, party cadres manned the service centres independently without having to confer with personal or political aides.
The former Kota Shah Alam state assemblyperson and lawyer M Manoharan, who was an ISA detainee, made several attempts to seek permission to attend state assembly sittings. They were rejected and he was quoted by Malaysiakini as saying: “I was only a political detainee and not even a corrupt individual. I took the oath in the Kamunting Detention Camp.”
He remains a convict
On Sept 5, after Najib was sent to prison, Dewan Rakyat speaker Azhar Azizan Harun declared that the former remains an MP in view of the pardon petition filed under Article 42 of the Federal Constitution.
"Therefore, his disqualification as a member of parliament will only take effect as soon as the pardon petition is settled (if the petition is rejected). This means that the status of Najib as MP has not changed, for now, and will only be finalised when the pardon petition is resolved," he said in a statement.
Since this is not under the jurisdiction of Parliament, does it have the right to issue any order for Najib to be brought to Parliament? Can the court compel the House speaker to issue an order?
It must be noted that merely applying or filing for a pardon does not absolve one from his wrongdoings and conviction. Bluntly put, he remains a convict.
If we go by precedent, on March 3, 2016, the Prisons Department rejected an application by Anwar Ibrahim’s family for the jailed opposition leader to attend Parliament.
Besides filing an appeal to the department for Anwar to attend Parliament, The Star reported that the former deputy prime minister’s family also submitted an application to the palace for a royal pardon to prevent him from being automatically disqualified as member of MP for the Permatang Pauh seat in Penang.
So, what is and why a fuss when the highest court in the land, the Federal Court, has affirmed the decisions of the courts below and confirmed the sentence?
Sentencing is the final stage in the criminal justice process. The principles of sentencing are aimed toward deterrence, rehabilitation, prevention and retribution.
The purpose of the punishment is to deter offenders from reoffending, discourage others from following their example, to prevent offenders from committing additional crimes by locking them up, and to reform them.
If criminals are allowed to be moved in and out of prison to attend to their personal or official duties, does it not make a mockery of the system and the punishment that was meted out? - 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.