|Laman Webantu KM2A1: 4379 File Size: 15.6 Kb *|
AP: Wahab Patail Raja Mahkamah.
4/5/2001 8:15 pm Fri
Ringkas: Gelagat Wahab Patail di Mahkamah.
Kes Tambahan Anwar:
Hakim Wahab Patail tidak membenarkan media melapurkan perbicaraan
Anwar yang ditetapkan pada 7 Jun 2001 nanti. Hanya 'bukti fakta'
sahaja dibenarkan. Ini menyebabkan wartawan kebingungan tidak tahu
apa yang boleh dan apa yang tidak boleh. Mereka sangsi apakah
kata-kata peguam atau Anwar atau sesiapa sahaja boleh dilapurkan.
"Perlembagaan Malaysia menjamin kebebasan bersuara tetapi ia
tidak menjamiin kebebasan selepas bersuara, " kata Harun Mahmud
Hashim, profesor undang-undang di UIA.
Kes Dr Munawar:
Dr Munawar Anees gagal untuk mendapatkan butiran terperinci dari polis
mengenai pergerakkan beliau semasa ditahan dari Sept 14 sehingga
Sept 19. Hakim Wahab Patail memutuskan tiada provisi yang memerlukan
kakitangan awam menyediakan jadual sedemikian. Menurut Patail lagi
Akta dan Undang-undang Penjara serta Undang-undang Lokap tidak
membenarkan Munawar memeriksa rekod-rekodnya.
Mahkamah diberitahu Nalla tidak dibenarkan untuk menemui peguam
Manjeet pada Sep 1 1998 kerana 'tersalah komunikasi'. Musa Hassan
menghadapi pertuduhan melanggar undang-undang lokap kerana tidak
membenarkan Nalla menemui peguamnya. Wahab Patail terus menggugurkan
Oleh kerana tiada kebebasan selepas bersuara, saya tidak mahu
atau perlu memberi komen apa-apa, cukuplah sekadar melapurkan sahaja.
Apakah itu pun salah juga?
Mungkin satu komen pendek sahaja. Bagaimana boleh 'tersalah komunikasi'
sedangkan Malaysia mempunyai MSC? Kalaulah begini cara polis bertugas
tidakkah ia menggugat keselamtan negara? Takkanlah tak ada talifon
langsung di Bukit Aman? Atau semuanya rosak belaka? Bukankah hand phone
itu ada? Lagipun wireless dan internet sudah ada. Tiada sebab untuk
polis memberi alasan 'tersalah komunikasi'. Tetapi semua orang tahu
polis mengikut arahan menteri dalam negeri dalam kes sebegini.
Menurut rekod, Mahathirlah menterinya di saat ini........
Malaysian court gags media as Anwar's trial set for 7 June
KUALA LUMPUR (AP - 4 May) -- As a debate on press freedom raged in
Malaysia on Tuesday, a judge issued a severe gag order that left
journalists confused about what they could print during the coming
s###my trial of convicted politician Anwar Ibrahim.
Judge Abdul Wahab Patail barred lawyers from talking to reporters
about the trial to get underway June 7. He said if lawyers were
unhappy they should seek legal avenues to express it.
He also said media could only publish "factual evidence" related to
the Anwar case, leaving reporters to wonder whether they could quote
Anwar, his lawyers and supporters during the trial that accuses him
of committing s###my in 1992.
"Reporters of any media organization breaching the order shall be
barred from the court," Abdul Wahab said in his five-page ruling.
Abdul Wahab's decision came amid growing unease among Malaysian
journalists about what newspapers can or can't publish.
After Tuesday's High Court ruling, few lawyers could explain to
reporters what it meant.
"I don't know what's prohibited. Nobody knows how this relates to
matters in the proceedings," said Raja Aziz Addruse, who headed a
team of nine lawyers to defend Anwar in the trial on four counts of
abuse of office. Anwar was convicted and sentenced to six years in
jail April 14.
Meanwhile, journalists, academics and media experts at a rare seminar
on the role of the press were unequivocal that a judge's ruling can't
"The judge is the king. His decision is final," said Hng Hung Yong,
chief executive officer of the Sun newspaper group.
On Tuesday, several Asian experts at a media seminar conceded there
were too many controls on the press. They complained that Malaysian
papers were controlled by powerful political groups and laws,
including one that requires publishers to renew their licenses every
While some of the editors of Malaysian dailies said curbs should be
lifted, they argued the press should abide by government regulations.
Others said controls were overwhelming.
"Malaysia's constitution guarantees freedom of speech. But it does
not guarantee freedom after speech," said Harun Mahmud Hashim, a law
professor at the International Islamic University near Kuala Lumpur.
KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court dismissed yesterday an application by
former consultant Dr Munawar Ahmad Aness for the police to provide
him with a detailed schedule of all his movements from the time of
his arrest on Sept 14 until he was charged on Sept 19. In dismissing
the application, Justice Abdul Wahab Patail ruled that there was no
provision requiring the public officer concerned to prepare a
detailed schedule as was requested. He said the application in this
case was not for any record that exists. Munawar, who was jailed six
months' by a Sessions Court on Sept 19 after he admitted to allowing
Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to s###mise him, had filed the application
on Oct 24.
He had named the Inspector-General of Police, the Director-General of
Prisons and the Government as respondents. Justice Abdul Wahab in his
14-page judgment, said at the onset, Senior DPP Mohd Yusof Zainal
Abiden had raised a preliminary objection and argued that it was
unclear as to under which provision the application was being made.
The judge said there was no evidence to suggest that a detailed
schedule as requested in the application was actually
maintained. "There is no evidence whatsoever that Munawar was moved
from the Kajang Prison on Sept 19 as was asserted in the
application. "The respondents are asked to create a schedule from
records that may or may not exist," he said, adding that the Prisons
Act and Rules, and the Lock-up Rules did not allow Munawar to inspect
Nalla's Application Against CID Assistant Director Dismissed - [ Editor]
Kuala Lumpur, Thurs - Police had no intention to obstruct former
Magnum Corp public affairs director Datuk Nallakarupan Solamalai from
meeting his lawyers while in detention at Bukit Aman, the High Court
was told today.
Police's refusal to allow lawyer manjeet Singh Dhillon to meet
nallakaruppan, better known as K.S. Nalla, on Sept 1, resulted
from "a miscommunication", senior DPP Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden said.
In a brief, prepared statement he read out in court, Yusof said the
statement was made to resolve nalla's applicatioin to order CID
assistant director SAC I Muksa Hassan to show cause why he should not
be cited for contempt for preventing Nalla from meeting his lawyers.
If the circumstances of Sept 1 suggest or are, in the eyes of the
counsel, tantamount to an obstruction, "then the police state that
they did not wilfully or intentionally cause such obstruction", Yusof
Manjeet told the court that in view of the statement, his client has
instructed him to withdraw the application.
Judge Abdul Wahab Patail then struck off the application.
In his application, Nalla said Musa had breached a court order and
the lock-up rules by barring nalla from meeting his lawyers on Sept
Nalla, who was arrested on Aug 31 for investigations into the book 50
Dalil kenapa Anwar Tidak Boleh Jadi PM, is being held at the Sungai
Buloh Prison pending trial on ollegal possession of ammunition,
scheduled to begin on Nov 9.
He is charged with unlawful possesion of 125 rounds of Fiocchi 6.35mm
bullets without lawful authority on July 31 in his house at Selekoh
Tunku in Bukit Tunku, a gazetted security area.
He was charged under Section 57(1)(b) of the Internal Security Act
1960, which carries the death penalty.
Our Independent Judiciary by (name deleted)
Keen observers of the Judiciary have known for some time now that the
dictum "Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done" has no
relevance in Mahathir's Malaysia since the Tun Salleh Abas dimissal.
If this is the extent to which the Government will go in the DSAI case what
hope does a foreign investor who runs afoul of the Government in the future
Asian Human Rights Commission
AHRC Publications - Human Rights Solidarity - January 1999
Volume 9 No. 1
Detained Suspects Denied Right to Legal Advice and Representation
On 18 November 1998, lawyers from the Legal Aid Centre in
Malaysia went before High Court judge Y.A. Datuk Wahab Patail
with a request that he do a revision of the remand proceedings on
16 November of all those arrested for illegal assembly a day
earlier, as the Legal Aid lawyers were denied access when the
matter was heard despite the fact that they had put on record in
writing that they were acting for those detained.
The judge while refusing to do revision informed the lawyers that
he would direct the magistrate who heard the remand application
on 16 November to re-hear the remand application in the
afternoon of 19 November.
Yet on 19 November, there was no re-hearing of the remand
application. The judge now said that he never gave any such
direction. He said that he had met with the magistrate, and from the
records, he is of the opinion that no re-hearing is required.
In fact, the lawyers had told the judge that they were acting on the
request of the family members. The judge, however, said that the
right to choose a lawyer rested with detained suspects, not their
Given the fact that there is no right to a phone call, no right of
access to family members and a lawyer, how can an accused
contact, let alone appoint, a lawyer?
The judge's response was that the right to a phone call is
something that the Malaysian Bar should be pushing for.
But then, if a person who is arrested and detained by the police
gets a right to one phone call, it still does not solve the problem. In
a hypothetical situation, the detained suspect would first call his
family/friends informing them that he has been arrested. He may
even ask them to go and get him a lawyer. The family would then
go and appoint a lawyer, but how is the family going to
communicate the fact that a lawyer has been appointed and that
his/her name is so-and-so? The detained suspect will then be in
the same position as he was with regard to legal representation
when there was no right to a phone call.
If there is a right of access to family and lawyers, then at least the
right to a lawyer will be ensured.
Therefore, the judge's view that a detainee, and not the family,
has the right to a lawyer of his choice fails.
In the Kuala Lumpur magistrate court, more than 90 per cent of the
people arrested do not have legal representation during remand
proceedings. It was also the case when they were brought to court
to be charged. The Legal Aid Centre's Dock Brief Programme now
ensures that most persons will have access to legal advice and
legal representation before they enter their plea. If they plead
guilty, these lawyers assist in the mitigation. If the person claims
trial (or wants to be out before he is convicted and sentenced), the
Legal Aid also helps them with bail applications. With regard to
remand proceedings, attempts to provide advice and
representation have many obstacles. The fact that they are
secretly brought in and quickly whisked to the magistrate at odd
times has also been one of the difficulties. Even when the lawyers
put themselves on record, the lawyers find that they are not called
in at times. If it is the police alone that creates this difficulty it may
be not too bad, but the fact that magistrate is seen to be in cohort
with the police is bad for the reputation of the Malaysian judiciary.
The courts should mete out justice and should strive to ensure that
the basic right to advice and representation by a lawyer.