jelas.info

As promised, here are some comments on the recent finding that Gani Patail and Musa Hassan (Then: deputy public prosecutor and investigating officer in Anwar’s case. Now: attorney general and inspector general. Coincidence?).

Before I get into it, a comment on Nazri and his views on this new EAIC/SIAP bill:

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz had previously revealed that the proposed commission would not have decision making powers.

The commission can only make recommendations to the relevant authorities after completing its investigations.

“The relevant agencies will be given a time frame to act. If no action is taken, the findings of the investigation will then be made public,” he said.

“The police, for instance, would then be forced to take action due to strong public pressure.”

Nazri added that, according to the federal constitution, any punitive action against errant government officers can only be taken by the agencies concerned, and not by a new body such as Siap.

“(To do that) we have to amend the constitution but the government doesn’t have two-thirds majority in Parliament for this,” he said.

This, with respect, is stupid. If the police had even the slightest inclination to react to public pressure, there would never have been the call for the IPCMC.

Malaysians have strongly supported the IPCMC precisely because the police don’t give a rat’s ass about what we think. If they did would they rush candlelight vigilers singing Negaraku? Beat Kugan to death? For that matter, beat up the Deputy Prime Minister?

His last comment is also, for lack of a better word, stupid. He seems to think us foolish enough to believe that we have no IPCMC because the opposition had the gall to deny BN a two thirds majority :|

My dear Nazri, why don’t you table the IPCMC in its original form, and let the voting speak for itself.

Anyway, back to Musa and Gani (another perfect example why we need the IPCMC).

First, of the three ex-judges who acquited these ‘fine’ gentlemen (These are based on preliminary Google searches, and I am open to correction), Mohd. Noor Abdullah appears to be the judge that heard Lim Guan Eng’s sedition trial (the one where he was on the side of an underaged Malay girl who allegedly was a victim of statutory rape involving Rahim Thamby Chik).

Kadir Sulaiman’s name turned up as a member of Mahathir’s Kuala Lumpur War Crimes “Tribunal,” where in judges basically were “well-behaved” and acted in exactly the way Mahathir had expected them to throughout his political career – subservient with foregone conclusions.

A motley crew, I’d say. While these two facts may not be much onto themselves, I think it’s important to consider the allegations against Musa and Gani.

Here, I beg your (and MK’s) pardon if I take the easy way out. The easiest way to refresh your memory is to reproduce Anwar’s police report on the matter, and a MK report on the admission of a former policeman intimately involved in the case. Peruse these, and judge for yourself.

Continue reading »

The prosecution appears to have succeeded in transferring Anwar’s sodomy case to the High Court.

I’ve never been sure what their ‘official’ excuse for wanting to do so in the first place was – any idea?

To add to the suspicion, as the matter went back to the Sessions Court today, Judge SM Komathy Suppiah – who had been hearing the matter all this while,  had ruled that the matter can stay in the Sessions Court, and should have been the judge to confirm any compliance with the higher court – was absent today, “on leave” overseas, and was replaced with a judge who appeared eager and happy to transfer the matter out of the Sessions Court.

Maybe this is perfectly normal, and the actions of the replacement Sessions Court judge fairly standard (any lawyers care to comment?)

Nonetheless, it appears that even the slightest anomaly in the Malaysian courts will cause members of the public like me to raise their eyebrows in suspicion.

After all, in today’s Malaysia, disappearances of any sort have become exceedingly suspect matters.

Evil marches on.

Anwar’s sodomy case: transfered to High Court.

Perak Pakatan Reps: investigated for “illegal assembly”

Fauzi Muda, whistleblower: investigated by police

Sivakumar: denied legal representation

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I see the hands of Najib (ie, Rosmah) permeating law enforcement and the judiciary.

Any conviction against Anwar at this point would be perfect for Rosmah/Najib. They don’t even need to put him in jail, a conviction and a fine is enough to achieve their mischief. Transfering the case from someone that can’t be bought to someone who can sounds like their perfectly standard modus operandi.

While Malaysians take hope that democracy needs not opulent halls but can flourish even under a simple tree, the scoundrels seek to oppress and oppress some more – desperate to cling on to illegitimate power.

Remember when Najib issued threats against all those who dare to speak out against corruption? Looks like he’s made good on that threat.

Once again, we find Pakatan people screaming at the top of their lungs that they have proof that millions were offered in bribes, but the MACC seems just too damned tied up in that dastardly cow shit.

According to K Shan, Judicial Commissioner Ridzuan Ibrahim appears, with respect, to have committed a considerable error in legal judgment. Here’s what the lawyer of the three ex-Pakatan reps argued:

Speaking to reporters later, lawyer Mohd Hafarizam said justice Ridwan made his order today based on three facts:

1. The speaker’s salary was paid through a consolidated fund from the state,
2. The legislative branch is part of the state government, according to the state constitution, and,
3. The speaker is a public officer according to the relevant laws and is part of the state government.

K Shan wrote:

The term “public officer” is not defined in the Government Proceedings Act 1956. The Interpretation Act has the following definitions:-

“public office” means an office in any of the public services;

“public officer” means a person lawfully holding, acting in or exercising the functions of a public office;

“public services” means the public services mentioned in Article 132(1) of the Federal Constitution;

Article 132(1) of the Federal Constitution lists out several public services such as the armed forces, the judicial and legal services, the police service and the general public service. In a nutshell, the public services are what is commonly called government service or civil service.

But Article 132(3)(b) is instructive. It categorically states that “the public service shall not be taken to comprise” the Speakers of Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies of the State.

I invite you to read his legal arguments and convincing article in full.

Of course, what BN wants is for Sivakumar to be represented by the state legal advisor, who surprise surprise is also (apparently happy to be) representing Zambry.

No conflict of interest there right? Of course not.

Sigh, before you know it, Guan Sin’s funny prediction will come true next.

It is the type of landscape that could be described as a ujian kesabaran, and a test of our perseverance and strength against increasingly overwhelming odds.

It calls to mind the challenges faced before March 8th. As the anniversary approaches, I’m reminded that we prevailed then; then as now, hope springs eternal, and our resolve will not fail.