by Maclean Patrick
Were we ever surprised that things would turn out this way?
Was it ever going to be a surprise that Prime Minister Najib Razak and wife
Rosmah Mansor would apply to strike out the subpoena placed on their heads?
In the beginning, the couple refused to attend an interview
to ascertain whether they were viable witnesses for the Sodomy II trial. They
made it clear that they would only do so if a subpoena was served on them.
Anwar's lawyers then applied for one, a subpoena was served and even-though the
decision itself was a surprise; it was clear the motive in allowing it to
happen was merely to ensure both Najib and Rosmah would never take the witness
box, ever, in the Sodomy II trial.
Why is this so? Because this method to evade taking the
witness stand was done before, back in 2001 by none other then ex-premier
Mahathir Mohamad.
Back then, the prosecution was led by Gani Patail and he
inadvertently colluded with the courts to allow the application to strike out
Mahathir’s subpoena. The court decided that Mahathir was not a material witness
to the 1998 sodomy trial, and thus his testimony was not relevant.
When the court decided to allow Mahathir to file an
application to strike out the subpoena, the defence would have had to state in
open court the relevance of the premier’s testimony to the ongoing sodomy
trial. This would force the defence to reveal the evidence they had against
Mahathir, something that clearly placed Anwar’s defence at a disadvantage.
Back
in 2001
Lead prosecutor Gani Patail, invoking S136 of the Evidence
Act, raised objections to the subpoena and said evidence to be sought from
Mahathir was irrelevant to the trial. Under this section, the judge will have
to rule whether evidence from a particular witness is relevant to the
proceedings.
"There is no evidence that would connect the Prime
Minister to the accused (Sukma). No evidence to show that the Prime Minister is
a material witness in the sodomy act. He was not at the scene," Gani
Patail said.
Failing to conceal his irritation, defence counsel Karpal
Singh snapped: "It is not for the prosecution to state what evidence the
Prime Minister is expected to give for the defence."
Arguing there is more than sufficient relevance, Karpal
pointed out that an earlier witness, police officer SAC Musa Hassan, had
testified that the principal witness in the sodomy trial, Azizan Abu Bakar, had
met with Mahathir. Azizan, in his evidence, confirmed the meeting.
Karpal, raising his voice, accused the prosecution of trying
to assist Mahathir by going the extra mile to prevent him from testifying.
"There is more than sufficient relevance for Mahathir to
testify. So, why the fright? Why the clambering to the Prime Minister’s
assistance to ensure he does not come to court?"
Acting
for the PM
Repeatedly saying that he is "not acting for the Prime
Minister", Gani Patail reminded the court it has the power and is in fact
duty bound to ask the defence to show the relevancy of Mahathir’s testimony.
Gani Patail indeed has experience in twisting the law and the
courts to his whims and fancy. More so now that he is the Attorney General.
Most Malaysians will say there is no doubt that he was in direct consultation
with Najib and Rosmah, and would have advised them every step in this case.
The same line of questioning Karpal had for Gani in 2001 can
apply for Najib and Rosmah in 2011. Why the fright? Why the clambering by the
AG and the courts to ensure that they do not come to court? Why the about-turns
and demands and threats when the court of law is the best place to prove one’s
innocence?
Come September 29th we will hear what the courts have to say
about Najib’s bid to strike out the subpoena but much of the usual can be
expected. This script has been played before and it will be re-played, striking
once again at the soul of the Malaysian judiciary. Until when will we see true
justice prevail? And not just for Anwar but for all. Hopefully, it will be in
this life-time.
Casino Classic
Source : MC
No comments:
Post a Comment