The growing interference in legislative and executive areas that are, strictly speaking, beyond its remit. It is argued, doubtless with good reason, that such interference is inevitable when the government and the legislature are unable or unwilling or both to shoulder their constitutionally-mandated tasks. Governance, like nature, abhors a vacuum. But the danger in this argument is that it upsets the delicate balance of power between the three estates of the republic that the Constitution decrees. On this count, too, a lethal virus could render the “software” of democracy obsolete.That danger is no less acute when governments, , deploy official agencies to get even with rivals. More often than not, such deployment is initiated outside the framework of laws, rules and regulations The revelation of an ongoing criminal investigation on lead prosecutor in the Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trial, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, has cast serious doubt not only on the impending hearing of Anwar’s appeal against his sodomy conviction at the Federal Court on October 28, but also on the legal validity of Anwar’s earlier conviction by the Court of Appeal on March 7.The Malaysian Insider in an article on October 18 reported that the Attorney-General’s Chambers issued an order as early as January 3, 2014 to investigate Shafee for having possibly made false affidavit in response to Anwar’s application to disqualify him, and that such investigation is still ongoing.
The accusation against Shafee was made by former Kuala Lumpur CID chief Datuk Mat Zain Ibrahim who claimed in his statutory declaration that some of the contents of Shafee’s affidavits were false.also read http://themalaybusinesstribune.blogspot.com/2014/07/unholy-trinity-of-mahathir-ag-and-macc.html
Mat Zain also told The Malaysian Insider that he only knew of A-G’s January 3 order to investigate Shafee, when the police approached him to record his statement on May 19.
This means that all this time, a criminal suspect under criminal investigation has led a prosecution team that resulted in Anwar’s conviction at the Court of Appeal, and he will continue to prosecute in the coming appeal hearing in the Federal Court.
These disturbing events call for urgent answers to the following questions:
1. Why did Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail allow Shafee to continue to act as prosecutor, when the latter is under criminal investigation for allegedly making false affidavit in order to stay on as prosecutor?
2. Why didn’t Gani inform the Court of Appeal of such ongoing investigation against Shafee before and during the hearing that led to Anwar’s conviction on March 7?
3. What is the legal implication to Anwar’s conviction on March 7, if Shafee is later found to be guilty of making false affidavit? Would that not render the conviction of Anwar on March 7 null and void, since it is done by an unqualified prosecutor whose integrity has proven to be defective?
4. Why did the police only begin to take statement from Mat Zain on May 19, well after Anwar’s conviction on March 7, and well after the order to investigate on January 3 and why is the investigation still not completed? Is it not reasonable to assume that the delay is deliberate so as not to delay and jeopardise Anwar’s conviction on March 7 at the Court of Appeal and at the oncoming Federal Court hearing, since there is no conceivable reason for such inordinate delays?
The entire episode has given ground for strong suspicion of malicious intent on the part of the prosecution in the current sodomy trial of Anwar, and needless to say, the integrity of both Gani and lead prosecutor Shafee is now called into serious question.
To avert further injustice to Anwar, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak must now order for an immediate and independent inquiry on both Gani and Shafee for possible criminal misconduct.
Meanwhile, hearing at the Federal Court must be held in abeyance, pending the conclusion of these investigations.
The brute force of power has replaced the unwritten rules that governed behaviour as the primary arbiter of our actions. Protection and punishment. The two standard responses to we from a minister that both protection and punishment are necessary instruments for dealing with this problem, responding to Mat Zain’s insistence that police could investigate Gani based on the contents of his statutory declaration (SD) without lodging a police report.Mat Zain drew attention to Sections 107 and 107A of the Criminal Procedure Code related to information given to the police and their powers to investigate.Mat Zain had also alleged that Gani had deliberately lost the case, resulting in the ICJ ruling in favour of Singapore. He urged the authorities to investigate the reason Malaysia lost the island to Singapore, saying the matter involved the country’s sovereignty.The former cop had said the reason he came out with the SD was to convince Putrajaya to establish a royal commission of inquiry over the loss of Pulau Batu Puteh to Singaporebut clearly much more is involved. The current idea of action seems to be focused on either preventing an incident that has already happened by limiting the focus to the very set of circumstances that were involved illusion the past, or to run away from the complexity of the proble
“We do not know if he has an agenda. No point in him hiding behind the SD whose contents may be hearsay.”Abu Talib said justice must be done if the police report contained elements of criminality.”Of course, Mat Zain is also open to prosecution if he lodges a false report against Gani.”Mat Zain had said that he had handed a copy of the SD to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and senior Putrajaya officials, alleging wrongdoings by Gani over the Pulau Batu Puteh case.In 2008, the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Netherlands ruled that the sovereignty of the island, half the size of a football field, belonged to Singapore.In the 31-page SD, Mat Zain had claimed that hundreds of millions of ringgit had changed hands and deposited into a Hong Kong bank account over this case.
The growing interference in legislative and executive areas that are, strictly speaking, beyond its remit. It is argued, doubtless with good reason, that such interference is inevitable when the government and the legislature are unable or unwilling or both to shoulder their constitutionally-mandated tasks. Governance, like nature, abhors a vacuum. But the danger in this argument is that it upsets the delicate balance of power between the three estates of the republic that the Constitution decrees. On this count, too, a lethal virus could render the “software” of democracy obsolete.That danger is no less acute when governments, , deploy official agencies to get even with rivals. More often than not, such deployment is initiated outside the framework of laws, rules and regulations The revelation of an ongoing criminal investigation on lead prosecutor in the Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trial, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, has cast serious doubt not only on the impending hearing of Anwar’s appeal against his sodomy conviction at the Federal Court on October 28, but also on the legal validity of Anwar’s earlier conviction by the Court of Appeal on March 7.The Malaysian Insider in an article on October 18 reported that the Attorney-General’s Chambers issued an order as early as January 3, 2014 to investigate Shafee for having possibly made false affidavit in response to Anwar’s application to disqualify him, and that such investigation is still ongoing.
The accusation against Shafee was made by former Kuala Lumpur CID chief Datuk Mat Zain Ibrahim who claimed in his statutory declaration that some of the contents of Shafee’s affidavits were false.also read http://themalaybusinesstribune.blogspot.com/2014/07/unholy-trinity-of-mahathir-ag-and-macc.html
Mat Zain also told The Malaysian Insider that he only knew of A-G’s January 3 order to investigate Shafee, when the police approached him to record his statement on May 19.
This means that all this time, a criminal suspect under criminal investigation has led a prosecution team that resulted in Anwar’s conviction at the Court of Appeal, and he will continue to prosecute in the coming appeal hearing in the Federal Court.
These disturbing events call for urgent answers to the following questions:
1. Why did Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail allow Shafee to continue to act as prosecutor, when the latter is under criminal investigation for allegedly making false affidavit in order to stay on as prosecutor?
2. Why didn’t Gani inform the Court of Appeal of such ongoing investigation against Shafee before and during the hearing that led to Anwar’s conviction on March 7?
3. What is the legal implication to Anwar’s conviction on March 7, if Shafee is later found to be guilty of making false affidavit? Would that not render the conviction of Anwar on March 7 null and void, since it is done by an unqualified prosecutor whose integrity has proven to be defective?
4. Why did the police only begin to take statement from Mat Zain on May 19, well after Anwar’s conviction on March 7, and well after the order to investigate on January 3 and why is the investigation still not completed? Is it not reasonable to assume that the delay is deliberate so as not to delay and jeopardise Anwar’s conviction on March 7 at the Court of Appeal and at the oncoming Federal Court hearing, since there is no conceivable reason for such inordinate delays?
The entire episode has given ground for strong suspicion of malicious intent on the part of the prosecution in the current sodomy trial of Anwar, and needless to say, the integrity of both Gani and lead prosecutor Shafee is now called into serious question.
To avert further injustice to Anwar, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak must now order for an immediate and independent inquiry on both Gani and Shafee for possible criminal misconduct.
Meanwhile, hearing at the Federal Court must be held in abeyance, pending the conclusion of these investigations.
The brute force of power has replaced the unwritten rules that governed behaviour as the primary arbiter of our actions. Protection and punishment. The two standard responses to we from a minister that both protection and punishment are necessary instruments for dealing with this problem, responding to Mat Zain’s insistence that police could investigate Gani based on the contents of his statutory declaration (SD) without lodging a police report.Mat Zain drew attention to Sections 107 and 107A of the Criminal Procedure Code related to information given to the police and their powers to investigate.Mat Zain had also alleged that Gani had deliberately lost the case, resulting in the ICJ ruling in favour of Singapore. He urged the authorities to investigate the reason Malaysia lost the island to Singapore, saying the matter involved the country’s sovereignty.The former cop had said the reason he came out with the SD was to convince Putrajaya to establish a royal commission of inquiry over the loss of Pulau Batu Puteh to Singaporebut clearly much more is involved. The current idea of action seems to be focused on either preventing an incident that has already happened by limiting the focus to the very set of circumstances that were involved illusion the past, or to run away from the complexity of the proble
“We do not know if he has an agenda. No point in him hiding behind the SD whose contents may be hearsay.”Abu Talib said justice must be done if the police report contained elements of criminality.”Of course, Mat Zain is also open to prosecution if he lodges a false report against Gani.”Mat Zain had said that he had handed a copy of the SD to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and senior Putrajaya officials, alleging wrongdoings by Gani over the Pulau Batu Puteh case.In 2008, the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Netherlands ruled that the sovereignty of the island, half the size of a football field, belonged to Singapore.In the 31-page SD, Mat Zain had claimed that hundreds of millions of ringgit had changed hands and deposited into a Hong Kong bank account over this case.
No comments:
Post a Comment