A royal pardon based on a dissenting judgment will open floodgates

 

From P Somasundaram

When there’s no finality to an appeal in the Federal Court by way of a majority decision, I begin to worry about the rule of law in the country.

What shocks me most is that the dissenting judgment in the court’s decision to dismiss an application by former prime minister Najib Razak to review the SRC International conviction and sentencing is being considered for use to apply for a pardon.

There would have probably been thousands of non-unanimous decisions at the Federal Court and Court of Appeal over the decades. This has resulted in criminals either serving their time or being hanged.

Going by the arguments of Najib and his lawyer, Shafee Abdullah, all those who lost their cases in majority decisions can now apply for a pardon using the dissenting judges’ views.

And families of those who were hanged after non-unanimous decisions by the apex court can think of suing the government for compensation using these minority judgments.

Mind you, in Najib’s case it was a 4-1 majority ruling and not 3-2.

But if a convict can be freed after seeking a royal pardon based on a dissenting judgement, then there is no more rule of law.

The concept of the three-tier judicial system may well be done away with.

All courts, including the Court of Appeal and Federal Court, might as well just have one judge deciding on an appeal. Then the situation of appealing for pardon using a minority judgment will not arise.

Sounds stupid right?

Once our judiciary becomes the laughing stock of the world, the consequences can be telling, because one of the main areas investors look at besides political stability is the rule of law.

They want to know if the courts and the state have the habit of protecting top politicians who have stolen money while the man who stole sardines to feed his children is jailed.

Najib was given several opportunities by the various courts that were not available to the average Malaysian. The trial saw its final extended conclusion after four long years.

Those who followed his SRC case closely could see the money trail from the government coffers being misused for personal greed and that of his family members.

By the way, the dissenting judgment only spoke of the last stage of appeal when his lawyers refused to submit, saying the newly appointed team needed time to study the 30,000 documents.

This judge did not say Najib was not guilty as charged but that his lawyers should have been given time to prepare their submission.

What? After four years, you decide to change lawyers midway and ask for more time? This is an obvious attempt to buy time for political reasons. Malaysians have had enough of this charade.

Now, our only hope of seeing that our laws are not trampled upon by any accused or their lawyers lies in the hands of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. He will have the final discretion even after the Pardons Board sits and sends in its recommendation.

Malaysians will be waiting with bated breath. - FMT

P Somasundaram is an FMT reader.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.