Syed Saddiq's case highlights disturbing questions about the administration of justice in Malaysia. The fact that he was only charged 7 months as alleged after consent to prosecute was given.....WHY?
...explain why the former youth and sports minister was charged seven months after the consent to prosecute had been given.
Does that mean that some Ministers, politicians and their friends will not be INVESTIGATED, CHARGED IN COURT and/or accorded a Fair trial in Malaysia?
Will such decisions be based of the political rulers of the day...the police/prosecutors...etc?
Would Syed Saddiq be even charged in court if he was a supporter of the current PN-BN Plus government led by Muhyiddin or whatever current government?
How many MPs or politicians are 'PROTECTED' from criminal investigations and prosecutions...and trials? Was this a 'promise' made to get them to support current government and decisions of its leaders?
Is our POLICE, Public Prosecutors and even the Judges truly INDEPENDENT - or are they just 'loyal servants' of the people in power?
Some are claiming that the current charging of Syed Saddiq is 'POLITICALLY MOTIVATED'? Well, if he is believed to have committed a crime, he must be immediately investigated, charged and tried in court - irrespective if whether he/he is the Prime Minister, Minister, member of the royalty, party members... and if this is not happening in Malaysia, then we have serious problems with the administration of justice ...and also a possible violation of the Federal Constitution that guarantees equality and equal treatment under the law..
The prosecution will and should only charge a person in court if they believe they have sufficient evidence to proof the guilt of the person. After all, guilt or innocence of a person is ultimately dependent on the independent JUDGE - no one else.
How can 'friends' be protected by those in power?
1 - Simply do not investigate properly reports that are being made - INVESTIGATE PROPERLY means a thorough investigation to unearth the truth and needed evidence, and taking needed actions there after. The police has got this 'NFA"(no further action) - which puts an end to investigations - this should be open to Judicial Review to prevent possible abuse of law enforcement authorities.
2 - INDEPENDENT PROSECUTORS - now, before charging a person in court, for many crimes, there is a requirement that CONSENT be obtained from the Public Prosecutor. So, even after a thorough investigation with more that required evidence to prove the crime, the Public Prosecutor have the POWER to prevent someone being charged in court - should this also be subject to Judicial Review?
3 - Well, in Syed Saddiq's case, it is reported that after getting the required CONSENT, he was not immediately charged in court. This raises much questions, where the Public Prosecutor must provide answers - why the delay? Remember in Najib's case, the Public Prosecutor came out and gave an explanation...
4 - Even after someone is charged in court, and before the trial proceeds or completes, the prosecution can decide to DISCONTINUE PROCEEDINGS, and then the JUDGE has the power DISCHARGE NOT AMOUNTING TO ACQUITTAL or grant a full ACQUITTAL. The problem for a discontinuance is normally because of insufficiency of evidence not that the accused is not guilty. HENCE, there should be NO ACQUITTAL - but just a discharge not amounting to acquital(DNAA). A DNAA restores STATUS QUO - and if at a later date, more evidence is found, the person can be charged again. An ACQUITTAL is unjust and wrong, and a means to provide total immunity to a possible guilty person - for once acquitted, he/she can never be charged again for the same offence. Hence, the best protection for political allies/friends, is to charge, and then ensure an ACQUITTAL. How many of Malaysian politicians and friends of politicians have got this ACQUITTAL before even a full trial is completed.
5 - Even if there is a FULL TRIAL, prosecution can wrongly make sure one is not found GUILTY, and this happened by simply not calling material witnesses - something that the court judgments revealed in Eric Chia and Kasitah Kadam's case - Kasitah Gaddam & Eric Chia - Prosecution's failure to call witnesses - Was it just incompetence OR....?
Justice Suraya said the failure of the prosecution in not calling six board members who were present in the meeting was detrimental to the case as it had created a big gap over the question of whether the board members were actually cheated by the accused.
Judge '...Akhtar said the most glaring setback was the prosecution’s failure to call two material witnesses, who would have been able to confirm whether payment was needed for...'
6. Then there is PARDON - Anwar was quick to be pardoned. One former Minister convicted for MURDER facing the death penalty received Pardon No.1 that commuted sentence to imprisonment, and then a 2nd Pardon which reduced the prison sentence. The PARDON powers can also be abused and selective - so Beware..
It is key for the administration of justice to be INDEPENDENT, and the jobs be done professionally without discrimination.
No one is ABOVE THE LAW and ought to be accorded special treatment...
Article 8 (1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
Even if the investigation by police reveal that a sitting Prime Minister or Minister committed a crime, then he must be charged in court then and there.
'POLITICALLY MOTIVATED CASES' - real or simply an excuse by the accused and their friends.
There should be NO POLITICALLY MOTIVATED action or influence by any parties in the administration of justice...
Is the charges against Syed Saddiq politically motivated - I do not believe that the prosecution would have charged him if they had not acquired sufficient evidence to prove the crime ...
Are promises of no investigation or no prosecution a means to keep MPs or political parties in line with the current government or even party leadership .....i,e, 'if you do not do as told ...or make too much noise...' - then you will be investigated, charged and tried...
Look at the corruption charges against Najib and some of the other politicians - most of it are for offences commenced many years ago - is that indicative of a failure of the police/MACC/etc - or indicative of political power used to subvert investigation and prosecution?
WHAT MALAYSIA NEEDS IS REFORMS TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION IN THE APPLICATION OF LAW - AND THAT ALL ASPECTS OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FROM THE POLICE, LAW ENFORCERS, PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES TO ACT INDEPENDENTLY NOT INFLUENCED BY THOSE IN POWER...
Explain charges against Syed Saddiq, Kit Siang tells PM
THE prime minister must explain in Parliament if the criminal charges preferred against Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman yesterday were politically motivated.
The Iskandar Puteri MP said Muhyiddin Yassin must also explain why the former youth and sports minister was charged seven months after the consent to prosecute had been given.
The DAP leader said Muhyiddin must make these explanations in the form of a ministerial statement in Parliament when it meets for a special briefing next week.
“If Muhyiddin is unable to give a satisfactory explanation, then Syed Saddiq’s charge that his prosecution was politically motivated stands,” Lim said in a statement.
He added that it would also prove that Syed Saddiq was correct in his warning that several other MPs were also being “targeted” by the authorities with corruption investigations.
He also said that it was unacceptable and a gross abuse of state institutions to prosecute or penalise MPs just to save the government of the day.
Syed Saddiq, the Muar MP and a founder of Muhyiddin’s party, was charged at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court yesterday with two counts of misappropriating his former party funds to the sum of RM1.12 million.
In the first charge, he is accused of misappropriating RM1 million via a CIMB cheque, at CIMB Bank, KL Sentral, Kuala Lumpur, on March 6 last year.
He is charged under Section 405 of the Penal Code for criminal breach of trust and faces up to 10 years in jail, caning and a fine if found guilty for the first charge.
In the second charge, he is accused of withdrawing RM120,000 from Maybank Islamic Bhd in Taman Pandan Jaya, Kuala Lumpur in April 2018.
The Muda president has pleaded not guilty to both charges.
In a press conference later, Syed Saddiq said the allegations against him were unfair and that the RM1 million withdrawn from a Bersatu account was used to deliver aid to parliamentary constituencies under the party.
He also said the RM120,000 raised during the fundraising events on April 8 and 9, 2018 were for his 2018 general election campaign in Muar and were not meant for Bersatu.
He has also launched a crowdfunding campaign to help pay for his legal cost as well as his RM330,000 bail.
He was released from detention after posting the first RM80,000 of
the bail yesterday, with the remaining RM250,000 to be paid by next
Tuesday. – July 23, 2021, Malaysian Insight
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment