|Laman Webantu KM2A1: 4863 File Size: 9.1 Kb *|
Federal Court Casts Shadow On Anwar Trial
By Kim Quek
1/7/2001 9:32 am Sun
[Keputusan teperinci oleh 3 hakim yang mengadili Zainur membawa
satu implikasi yang amat penting. Ia menunjukkan Ghani dan Mohtar
telah bersekongkol untuk mengenakan Anwar dan Hakim Augustine Paul
sengaja dan tiba-tiba menghukum Zainur menghina mahkamah agar semua
keterangan Manjeet tidak terkeluar.
Sampai sekarang keterangan Manjeet tidak pun dicabar. Malah 3 hakim
tersebut telah mengguna-pakainya dalam semua penghakiman mereka. Ini
menunjukkan ia memang benar - Gani telah mengugut Nalla untuk membuat
pengakuan palsu terhadap Anwar. Ini adalah satu kesalahan pihak pendakwa
yang amat besar. (Gani boleh dihukum 20 tahun penjara!) Ia juga
menunjukkan Hakim Augustine Paul telah membuat satu keputusan yang
tergesa-gesa yang tidak relevan yang menindas Zainur serta Anwar.
Ini semua bermakna Anwar mungkin perlu diadili semula..... kerana
terdapat elemen ketidakadilan kepada Anwar dan kerana cara Hakim
Augustine Paul mengadili kes itu telah dikutuk hebat oleh 3 hakim besar.
Tuhan Maha Kaya - kebenaran itu nampaknya akan terpancar jua dan tempoh
itu seperti sudah tidak lama. Dimanakah nanti Mahathir, Mohtar, Ghani,
dan Augustine Paul mahu menyorokkan muka?
In quashing the 'contempt' conviction on lawyer Zainur Zakaria, the
Federal Court (the highest court) has more than severely condemned the
highly questionable conduct of trial judge Augustine Paul (the reprimand
includes the devastating description of Paul as behaving like counsel for
the prosecutors). The wordings of the 3 separate Judgments written by
the 3 judges in the panel carry overtones that cast serious adverse
implications on the trial of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.
The epi-centre of this drama is a letter dated 12th October 1998 written
by lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon to the then Attorney General Mohtar
Abdullah, detailing the meeting Manjeet and co-counsel Balwant Singh
Sidhu had with leading Prosecutor Gani Patail, during which Gani used
the death penalty to blackmail Manjeet's client Nalla to fabricate
evidence against Anwar.
Manjeet hand delivered this letter personally to the AG on 12th October
1998, pursuant to which he had a meeting with the AG on the next day at
the latter's invitation. Throughout this meeting, the AG never questioned
or disputed Manjeet's allegations against Gani.
The important point to note about this letter is that it has been extensively referred to and discussed in the Judgments of the Federal Court panel, and throughout their discourse, the accuracy of facts as stated in this letter has never been questioned. In fact the presumption of accuracy of the facts of this letter is apparent throughout these Judgments, exemplified by Justice Shim's series of questions/comments on the conduct of Gani as described in the said letter, such as:
Neither has the accuracy of facts as stated in the said letter been
questioned by the Court of Appeal or by Justice Paul in the High Court
(Paul only argued with Zainur on the inferences from Para 4 of the said
The acceptance of the facts as stated in the said letter by all the courts
mentioned above implicates criminal improprieties on the Prosecutors as
well as on the AG, the latter's involvement being obvious when he failed
to act upon receiving such serious written allegations against his staff. To
indicate how serious the allegations are, I quote from part of para 4 of the
letter as follows (block letters are my highlights):
'It is BLACKMAIL AND EXTORTION of the highest culpability and my
greatest disappointment is that a once independent agency that I worked
with some 25 years ago and of which I have such satisfying memories
has descended to such levels in the CREATION and collection of
evidence. To use the death threat as a means to the EXTORTION OF
EVIDENCE THAT IS OTHERWISE NOT THERE (why else make such a
demand?), it is unforgivable and surely must in itself be a crime, leave
alone a sin, of the greatest magnitude.'
If Manjeet's allegations were unfounded or untrue, wouldn't the AG
have jumped from his seat and gave Manjeet a lashing of the tongue at
the very least, or more properly, charged Manjeet for defamation? On
the other hand, if Manjeet's allegations were true, wouldn't it be natural
for the AG to quietly sidestep the allegations, talked shops, and acted
non-committal on Manjeet's request to change the charge on Nalla from
the Internal Security Act 1960 (death penalty) to one under Arms Act
1960 (no death penalty), like what the AG did?
The apparent criminal conduct of the Prosecutors, taken together with the highly questionable conduct of trial Judge Paul would then logically solve a series of puzzles that arose from the Judgments of the panel Judges, such as:
The only plausible answers to the above extra-ordinary behaviour of the
Prosecutors and the trial Judge are that the Prosecutors were indeed
guilty of using the death penalty to blackmail Nalla to fabricate evidence
against Anwar, and that Judge Paul acting in collusion with the AG and
the Prosecutors, hastily shut Anwar's counsels up by summarily
convicting Zainur, to avoid an implosion of evidence which might
eventually derail the whole trial on Anwar. In the course of doing so,
Paul's behaviour appeared so weird (brushing aside facts and normal
procedure to jump convict Zainur) that it elicited the most unusual
comment from Justice Abdul Malek Ahmad that Paul acted more like the
counsel for the Prosecution, which is most damning on Paul to say the
least, and by extension, on the entire trial of Anwar Ibrahim.
What does it mean when the Prosecution is found to have carried out the
extreme measure of wrongfully charging some one under an Act that
carries the death penalty in order to extort false evidence from the latter
to incriminate the Accused? And further, what does it mean when the
trial Judge is found to have acted in collusion with the Prosecution to
unlawfully and hastily convict the Accused's counsel with contempt of
court, so that the criminal conduct of the Prosecution to fabricate
evidence will not surface to abort the trial?
There is only one answer, and that is there has been a miscarriage of
justice, if the Accused is convicted under these circumstances.
Anwar has been subjected to the cruelest and most manifestly unfair trial
in our living memory under the criminal hands of the trial Judge and the
Prosecution. His trial and conviction is the most glaring example of
miscarriage of justice, for which Malaysia's judiciary and leadership
have been deservedly condemned universally.
In the light of the latest revelations from our highest court, it is now
incumbent upon our Chief Justice, Attorney General and the de facto
Law Minister to immediately seek ways to have this injustice rectified in
the shortest possible time. Meanwhile, those responsible for causing this
injustice must be pursued and brought to justice.