`


THERE IS NO GOD EXCEPT ALLAH
read:
MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku

LOVE MALAYSIA!!!


Wednesday, February 15, 2023

Authorities drop plan to charge activist again over criticism of Immigration Dept

 


Authorities have apparently dropped off its plan to haul refugee rights activist Heidy Quah to court over a Facebook post she made in 2020, where she spoke out against the alleged mistreatment of refugees at Immigration detention centres.

Quah, who is Refuge for the Refugees founder, in a statement tonight said she has just received a call from the police investigating officer in charge of her case that she no longer needs to appear in court tomorrow.

“I have just gotten a call from the investigating officer informing me that I no longer need to go in tomorrow to be charged.

“I am not sure what caused the change in mind - public pressure, our letters of appeals, or the different leaders within the government that have worked hard for a New Malaysia and want to do things right.

“Either way, I am thankful, but still cautiously optimistic. I hope that this is once and for all and I will no longer be charged,” she said.

The call came about three hours after Quah issued a statement condemning the government, whom she accused of condoning the practice of its predecessors in silencing government critics.

In the earlier statement, Quah said authorities wanted to again press charges against her under Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act, which stipulates offences of using network facilities to transmit communication deemed to be offensive or could cause annoyance to another person.

In 2021, she had already been charged with the same offence over the same Facebook post.

It was related to an article Quah wrote, where she shared her experience in helping a woman who struggled to care for her baby at an Immigration detention centre.

Her article also exposed allegedly horrific conditions of the Immigration detention cells.

However, on April 25 last year, Sessions Court judge Edwin Paramjothy ordered a discharge not amounting to an acquittal on the case after the court found that the charge was not in compliance with Sections 152 to 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which stipulates that the form of charge, particulars as to time, place, person, and the manner of the offence committed must be stated. - Mkini

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.