Muhammed Yusoff Rawther allegedly committed the offence on 6/9/2024, and he was charged in court on 12/9/2024 - wow, so fast.
Compare with another 'famous' case, where a police officer assaulted a deaf and mute e-hailing driver Ong Ing Keong on 28/5/2024 - 3 months plus have passed, and the said police officer has still not being CHARGED in Court....WHY? Police said investigation papers sent to the Attorney General(also Public Prosecutor) on 14/6/2024. Why still not charged, more so when there is also video evidence....
May 28: Deaf and mute e-hailing driver Ong Ing Keong, 46, is allegedly assaulted by a security personnel who was escorting a VVIP outside St Regis Hotel in Kuala Lumpur..
June 14: Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Razarudin Husain says investigation papers for the case have been sent to the Attorney-General's Chambers (A-GC).
Does this not HIGHLIGHT a major problem in Malaysia - Is PM Anwar Ibrahim's and/or his government's policy NOT to charge police officers for crimes in court? Is this 'the government will protect police officers from being charged, tried and sentenced in court?
Either way, in my opinion, it is DISCRIMINATORY - it is against our Constitutional Guarantee that Art 8(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
We have heard of the phrase 'SELECTIVE PROSECUTION' - is this not a case of 'selective non-prosecution'?
The Prime Minister and the government have been to 'silent' about why the police officer is yet to be charged. The government's de facto 'spokesperson' Minister Fahmi too simply said 'refer to relevant agency' - a commitment by the government that no one is above the law, even police officers would have been good to hear...
Government spokesperson Fahmi Fadzil has referred a question on the assault on deaf e-hailing driver Ong Ing Keong to the relevant “enforcement agency”.He was asked if the cabinet had discussed the case and about the memorandum calling for the establishment of a commission of inquiry into the incident.“Enforcement agencies. Can ‘refer’ (merujuk) to the relevant agency,” he replied.
Once the police submits the investigation papers to the Attorney General/Public Prosecutor. They will charge, or if they do not, they will tell us WHY? If more evidence required, then the AG/PP will ask the police to investigate further.... BUT, here in this case, there is just silence.
Back to Yusoff Rawther's case - reasonably one will only be charged after all needed investigations done. In a media report, it was said that '...Deputy public prosecutor Mohd Sabri Othman asked the court to set a mention date pending the results of the substances which has been sent to the Department of Chemistry to be analysed...'
Does this mean that police has still not confirmed that the substance was DRUGS - cannabis? With regards to dangerous drugs, the WEIGHT of the drugs seized is important - Below a certain weight, one is charged with POSESSION ( ) and above a certain weight, one is charged with TRAFFICKING.
So, ONLY after the Chemistry Department has analyzed and confirmed that it is CANNABIS, and the weight of the said drugs - will the prosecution charge an accused person. So, is this a case of an accused being PREMATURELY CHARGED? If so, it is wrong and a grave injustice.
Now, the Courts have been clear that NO one should be charged until investigation has been completed, and prosecution is confident that they have sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt...
The principle is that a person should not be charged in Court until the investigation into the case against him has been completed and there is prima facie evidence to prosecute him of the charge. In other words, a person should not be put in peril of a criminal trial unless the prosecution is able to prove the case against him. To do otherwise is an injustice. It is unjust because of the social stigma that immediately attaches to a person once he is charged in Court. He is deserted by his friends. His business is affected. His creditors close on him. His family is ashamed. He is mentally tormented awaiting trial. And last but not least, he has to incur the expense of engaging Counsel. There is no consolation in the fact that he may eventually be shown to be innocent of the charge. The damage has been done.- HARUN J,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v. TAN KIM SAN[1980] CLJU 66[1980] 1 LNS 66
Is Muhammed Yusoff Rawther a victim of INJUSTICE - given that media report indicates that INVESTIGATION yet to be completed - they may not even know what was the said DRUG or was it just some flour? And worse, what was the WEIGHT of the drugs - how can they know when Chemistry Department yet to revert to the prosecution - pending the results of the substances which has been sent to the Department of Chemistry to be analysed...'
Now, if it is DRUG TRAFFICKING - then the Court that has the jurisdiction to hear the case is the High Court. That is why, in the Magistrate Court, the charge was read - but the Accused was not asked to enter a PLEA - guilty or not guilty? So, now the case goes to the High Court and the accused will be asked to enter a plea... and then the Court will decide on BAIL, which rightly he should get save for some exceptional reason. Remember one is PRESUMED INNOCENT until the Court convicts you after a FAIR TRIAL.
Now, the case must be speedily be brought to the High Court - tomorrow or early next week.. any DELAY is most unjust to the accused, who is in detention...
So, the RIGHT and JUST thing to do in Muhammed Yusoff Rawther's case is for the PP/AG to immediately discontinue prosecution of the case, like what was done for Zahid Hamidi's case - thereto for the reason of needing time to investigate further matters raised in letters of representation.
Immediately DISCONTINUE the criminal trial of Muhammed Yusoff Rawther - a DNAA? Then, when 'the investigation into the case
against him has been completed and there is prima facie evidence to
prosecute him of the charge' , the AG/PP has the power to recharge him
Yusoff Rawther charged with trafficking cannabis [WATCH]
KUALA LUMPUR: Muhammed Yusoff Rawther, the former research assistant to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, proclaimed his innocence today after being charged at the magistrate's court with trafficking 305g of cannabis last week.
"I am innocent. I am framed by those in power."
Yusoff, 31, was charged with trafficking cannabis at 10.15am in front of the carpark of Kuala Lumpur police contingent headquarters surau on Sept 6.
The charge under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act punishable under Section 39(B(2) carries a life sentence, and no fewer than 12 stokes of the rotan.
He nodded and said he understood the charge before magistrate M.S. Arunjothy.
However, no plea was taken from Yusoff as drug trafficking cases are under the jurisdiction of the High Court.
Deputy public prosecutor Mohd Sabri Othman asked the court to set a mention date pending the results of the substances which has been sent to the Department of Chemistry to be analysed.
The court set Nov 12 for mention.
Yusoff was represented by lawyer Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali.
Rafique will hold a press conference on the matter later today.
Earlier, Yusoff arrived at the court complex under heavy police security today.
He was heard uttering profanities at a certain politician as he was led into the complex lock-up.
It was reported that Yusoff was arrested last Friday after police allegedly found two pistols and 305g of ganja in the car he was travelling in.
Rafique said Yusoff was detained around 9.30am on the same day.
Rafique had said the case, initially investigated under the Arms Act 1960, was being under the Dangerous Drugs Act after the remand application under the former was rejected.
He said Yusoff denied any connection to the pistols and drugs, claiming that the items were planted to frame him by individuals with personal vendettas.
The High Court fixed a seven-day trial from June 16 next year. - NST, 12/9/2024
Alleged assault of deaf e-hailing driver: A chronology of events
May 28: Deaf and mute e-hailing driver Ong Ing Keong, 46, is allegedly assaulted by a security personnel who was escorting a VVIP outside St Regis Hotel in Kuala Lumpur while he was waiting to pick up customers outside the lobby.
Ong claims that a man knocked on his car window and then punched him in the face. He lodges two reports at the Brickfields police station. He receives treatment at Kuala Lumpur Hospital for a soft tissue injury.
May 31: His Royal Highness Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim, Regent of Johor urges police to probe the alleged assault, saying he wants justice for Ong. He said he told the police escort team to cooperate with investigations.
Tunku Ismail also hits out at attempts to drag the royal institution into the matter, saying it was uncalled for to link the actions of external security personnel with himself and the royal institution.
June 5: Ong is summoned to Bukit Aman to assist in a disciplinary inquiry into the incident. The case is investigated under Section 323 for causing voluntary hurt. Ong is questioned for four hours, accompanied by lawyers and an interpreter.
Bukit Aman Integrity and Standards Compliance Department director Datuk Azri Ahmad says the police escort is part of a VVIP's entourage and that the department will determine if there was a breach of standard operating procedures or misconduct.
June 14: Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Razarudin Husain says investigation papers for the case have been sent to the Attorney-General's Chambers (A-GC).
July 10:/b> Ong's lawyer, Latheefa Koya, who is also former Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission chief commissioner, criticises the A-GC and police for failing to take action in the case.
July 19: About 10 members of the Deaf Advocacy and Wellbeing National Organisation, including Ong, submit a memorandum to the A-GC in Putrajaya demanding that the suspect be charged.
The organisation's co-founder, Anthony Chong, says the case has not progressed to prosecution despite clear evidence and testimonies from witnesses.
Aug 13: Lawyers for Liberty announces it will hold a press
conference on the issue. The human rights group said no one has been
held accountable for the alleged assault despite video evidence and the
completion of the police's probe. - NST, 13/8/2024
Government spokesperson Fahmi Fadzil has referred a question on the assault on deaf e-hailing driver Ong Ing Keong to the relevant “enforcement agency”.
He was asked if the cabinet had discussed the case and about the memorandum calling for the establishment of a commission of inquiry into the incident.
“Enforcement agencies. Can ‘refer’ (merujuk) to the relevant agency,” he replied.
On Sept 5, Ong together with Lawyers for Liberty (LFL), submitted a memorandum and a dashcam recording of the assault to the Prime Minister’s Office.
Earlier today, LFL adviser N Surendran pointed out that more than 100 days have passed since the 48-year-old victim was punched in the face by a police escort of Johor Regent Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim.
“What possible justification is there for the failure to bring charges against the culprit and anyone else who abetted him or tried to cover up the matter?” he told Malaysiakini.
Surendran also highlighted the “pin-drop” silence of the PMO regarding the memorandum, which contained five demands.... Malaysiakini, 11/9/2024
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment