Last week, I wrote: “Habis. The end. It is all done - finito. And certainly, the curtains must come down on former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak’s SRC International case.” I concluded by saying that the fat lady has sung.
I was not wrong but a reader noted that the fat lady was just clearing her throat. How true it turned out to be. Now we hear that the sole dissenting judgment will be used to bolster a bid for a pardon.
The word pardon denotes an exercise in forgiving someone, in this case, a convicted wrongdoer. In most cases, the offender expresses remorse and seeks forgiveness, but in this case, he is seeking a pardon defiantly.
The phrase “fair trial” has been misused ever since Najib was first charged in 2018 and continues to be used by his supporters, cronies, politicians and lawyers.
And this “fair trial” bit is again going to be used in the pardon bid, sans repentance and compassion.
Yesterday, his defence counsel Muhammed Shafee Abdullah made it clear at a media conference, saying that the pardon (application) is exactly what (Abdul) Rahman (Sebli, the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak) said in the judgment.
(While Rahman ruled that he was inclined to grant Najib an acquittal, the other members of the bench disagreed, resulting in a 4 to 1 majority verdict to dismiss the former premier’s review bid. The other members of the bench were Federal Court judges Vernon Ong Lam Kiat, Rhodzariah Bujang and Nordin Hassan, and Court of Appeal judge Abu Bakar Jais.)
“Our pardon request is exactly what Rahman said in his judgment. The request for pardon is not because, ‘Oh, I did wrong, I’m sorry and therefore I throw myself upon your mercy,’ no.
“This is not the pardon that is normally the case.”
He said the request would state that the former prime minister did not receive a fair trial, adding that his case was not heard in the apex court and the prosecution was heard ex parte by the judges.
Shafee: Judgment to be sent to the King
Shafee also said the majority judgment would be sent to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong for comparison, to see “which is the better judgment”.
Does it mean a new level of the judiciary – above the Federal Court is being created – with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong heading it?
Surely, the Pardons Board headed by His Majesty cannot surely go into the merits of the case in which the Federal Court and the courts below unanimously found Najib guilty.
On review, one judge remarked on procedural flaws, but surely his sole findings cannot supersede that of the other four. To harp on one judgment (against four) and drag the issue must be a desperate attempt to escape justice.
If this attempt to seek a pardon is binned, then what next?
Three months ago, Najib Abdul Razak filed a petition with the United Nations (UN) working group, asking for his release or a retrial of the SRC International case.
Shafee said the petition was filed with the UN Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) on Jan 5.
“He (Najib) is asking the UNWGAD panel of five experts on international justice to rule that the dismissal of his appeal by the Federal Court on Aug 23, 2022, was unjust, flawed and violated his basic human rights and the Federal Constitution,” he added.
But the Working Group has the mandate only to investigate cases of deprivation of liberty imposed arbitrarily or inconsistently with the international standards set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the international legal instruments accepted by the countries concerned.
The Working Group investigates alleged cases of arbitrary detention by sending urgent appeals and communications to concerned governments to clarify and/or bring their attention to these cases.
Was Najib’s liberty deprived arbitrarily or inconsistently? It was not a kangaroo court that found him guilty and he has exhausted all legal avenues available.
Surely, if this charade is primarily aimed at keeping him in the news, it may have achieved its aims. But mocking the judiciary is another matter altogether. - 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.