Anwar’s fabricated cases are evidence of Abdul Gani Patail conceited insouciance.In reshaping methods of the Attorney-General’s office
. “A fractured judiciary , hostage to whimsical opportunists, is always an unhappy eventuality. In 2014, it could be catastrophic.”The relationship with the judiciary’s tendency to overreach into areas that technically weren’t in their mandated precinct.
Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail hid the fact that he was under police investigation from the Pardons Board, which had disposed of a clemency application by opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's family members, a former senior police said in a report lodged against the chief prosecutor.
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.
Former top cop turned chicken! Musa fear being question by the defence lawyers because he cannot manipulate them. Also defenc will also have Ramli as their witness and all Musa’s dirty secrets will then come out in court. When someone withdraws his defamation suit against you, it simply means your “defaming” statement against him is truthfully told.parties are avoiding the publicity of a trial. Musa, AG,UMNO kingpins and the underworld.
Former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan’s decision to drop his defamation suit against Datuk Seri Anmwar Ibrahim proves there was a government plot to fabricate evidence over the 1998 Sodomy I charges, the opposition leader said today.
Anwar says Musa’s withdrawal proves there was a conspiracy. — File pic
Musa had earlier this morning told the High Court he was withdrawing his suit and had agreed to settle his case out of court, saying he had been there was a “misunderstanding” over his role in the 1998 “black eye” incident where Anwar had been beaten up by the then-IGP Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Noor while in the police lock-up, which left him with bruises, in the run-up to the former deputy prime minister’s high-profile first sodomy trial.
“I am thankful and satisfied by the withdrawal of the suit,” Anwar said.
The head of the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) opposition pact said he could now put the court case behind him and focus on preparing for the 13th general election due soon.
“But the question that now arises is that this proves there was a conspiracy and a fabrication of evidence in my prosecution in 1998,” the PKR leader told reporters outside the courtroom.
He said he would not take any legal action against Musa as the ex-policeman had shown “some sort of respect and understanding to move on”.
But Anwar wants a tribunal to be set up to probe Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail’s role in the 1998 case.
“Now there must be a tribunal to investigate Abdul Gani’s role because he has yet to escape from the accusations directly.
“So now we focus on A-G,” Anwar said.
Musa, who served as IGP for four years from 2006 to 2010, had sued Anwar for defamation four years ago, three weeks after the Permatang Pauh MP lodged a report against him in 2008.
In his police report, the PKR leader accused Musa and Abdul Gani of conspiring to cover up the 1998 physical assault against him by Abdul Rahim, which left Anwar with a black eye.
This is indeed one of the darkest chapters in Malaysia’s history, where an innocnt man was convicted and served time. Now we can see how this man endured all the pain & suffering in prison and his family too had their lives turned upside down to serve the ambition of one such evil man.
May GOD in his infinite wisdom see it fit to punish those guilty of sending an innocent man to serve time. Dato Sri may GOD also grant you wisdom and compassion to forgive these men & women who have wronged u terribly
May GOD in his infinite wisdom see it fit to punish those guilty of sending an innocent man to serve time. Dato Sri may GOD also grant you wisdom and compassion to forgive these men & women who have wronged u terribly
Report let it go for now DSAI . do it when government changes hand . for now, convince the hardcore bn voters not to be stupid for another 5 years . tell us WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR MALAYSIANS beside hunting all the ‘legal crooks’ of malaysia !
Musa was at that time Bukit Aman’s assistant criminal investigation chief while Abdul Gani was the lead prosecutor in Anwar’s 1998 sodomy trial.
The former deputy prime minister also alleged that the duo tampered with a medical report and made up false evidence that he had sodomised several people while in the government, for which he was tried and convicted in 1999.
Anwar spent six years in jail before the judgment was later overturned.
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) had opened up investigations into both Musa and Abdul Gani in 2008 following Anwar’s filing of a police complaint against the senior policeman and the government lawyer.
Former Federal Court judge Datuk Abdul Kadir Sulaiman led a three-man panel into the inquiry against the two men and held the dissenting vote in a majority ruling that cleared Musa and Abdul Gani of power abuse.
PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim’s lawyers have denied former inspector-general of police Musa Hassan’s claim that the team had sought a settlement for the defamation suit brought by the latter.he chicken out thinking of the fool that he will be made to look like at the grilling session.
: one of the more intriguing confrontations in recent judicial history is set for staging before Judge Asmabi Mohamad in the Kuala Lumpur High Court.
Former Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan is the plaintiff in a defamatory case he filed against Anwar Ibrahim in mid-2008 after the Opposition leader had made several allegations against Musa and Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail in a Police report Anwar lodged on July 1 that year.
Defamation is a difficult area of jurisprudence to parse. About the only plaintiffs to win defamation cases with regularity in recent decades was the government of Lee Kuan Yew.
Respectable opinion attributed Singapore government’s high rate of success in defamatory cases to a compliant judiciary. If defamation is invoked concerning allegations that savour of the truth, the gold standard in cautionary wisdom would be the one offered by the Irish playwright Oscar Wilde after he sued the Marquis of Queensbury upon the latter calling him a sodomite.
Wilde had been accused by the Marquis who was angry at the writer’s relationship with his son, Alfred Douglas. Under cross-examination by the marquis’ lawyer, Edward Carson, then the English Bar’s leading exponent of the art, Wilde was exposed as the homosexual he was. He lost the suit.
The marquis was vindicated and Wilde, ever the aphorist even in defeat, coined “Never sue when the allegations are true,” which now stands as the gold standard in cautionary wisdom where defamation is concerned.
Whether Anwar’s allegations in a police report he lodged in 2008 concerning the deportment of Musa and Gani in respect of investigations leading to the brace of trials Anwar faced in 1998-99 are true will come up for trial tomorrow before Justice Asmabi.
The allegations were that Musa, then a senior investigator with the Police, and A-G Gani, then a senior prosecutor in the A-G’s Chambers, had fabricated evidence in the trials in 1998-99 against Anwar for corruption and abuse of power, and for sodomy.
Anwar’s allegations also concerned evidence relating to the 1999 inquiry by a Royal Commission into the ‘black eye’ incident suffered by Anwar while under police detention following his arrest on September 20, 1998.
Reacting to Anwar’s allegations lodged in the Police report of 2008, Musa issued through his lawyers letters of demand to Anwar to retract and apologise.
When Anwar refused, Musa filed for defamation. Gani, however, ignored the allegations, choosing not to sue.
Top cop speaks out
Top cop speaks out
The nub of Anwar’s allegations concerned the ‘black eye’ incident and the evidence that formed the basis of corruption, abuse of power and sodomy charges that were preferred against him in his trials in 1998-99.
Musa was the senior investigating officer in the initial trial of Anwar for corruption and abuse of power and the later trial for sodomy.
By the time Anwar filed the Police report in July 2008, Musa had risen to become Inspector-General of Police and Gani was promoted to the post of Attorney-General.
According to Anwar’s Police report, Musa and Gani had conspired to fabricate evidence that the ‘black eye’ Anwar suffered while in detention was self-inflicted.
The whole episode of the ‘black eye’ and the corruption and abuse of power and sodomy trials of 1998-99 are enmeshed in a miasma of contention, strands of which are gradually being brought to light by the retrospections of Mat Zain Ibrahim, a now retired police officer who in late 1998 was tasked with the role of investigating the ‘black eye’ incident.
In Police reports and affidavits he has filed in the last few years, Mat Zain claims that Musa and Gani had conspired to fabricate evidence in the ‘black eye’ incident.
In the trial beginning tomorrow, Musa will have his chance of refuting Mat Zain’s claims which are certain to be cited by Anwar’s lawyers as grounds for the dismissal of Musa’s defamation suit.
All efforts by Anwar’s counsel, the late Christopher Fernando, in the 1998-99 trial for corruption and abuse of power to show that Musa, with Gani, had engaged in a conspiracy to fabricate evidence against Anwar ran into a hail of “not relevant” objections by the prosecutor that were sustained by the late Justice Augustine Paul who presided at the trial.
In fact, several rulings on evidential relevance in the course of the trial by Paul, reputedly an expert on evidence, saw the term ‘not relevant’ pass into comic vogue at the trial and in its aftermath.
Whether Musa will find a comparably emollient Judge in Asmabi that he had in Paul in the trials of more than a decade ago is a question that will tantalise observers at tomorrow’s proceedings.
In 1997, Anwar wanted to go after a senior minister, who had been colluding with local authorities to alienate land in Johor, Kedah, Langkawi and Sepang. Of course TUN MAHATHIR won’t have this happen to the then UMNO treasurer. In the 90s, the ACA and the AG opined that there was a case against Rafidah over the allocation of shares to her son-in-law. TUN MAHATHIR stopped the proposed prosecution. In the late 90s, the Director-General of the EPU was “caught” with a rather large bundle of cash in his office drawer by the ACA. Again, TUN MAHATHIR said “no” to the proposed prosecution.What would be different if the MACC had been in place at those times ?
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.
Tun CJ, it is the other way round. Please restore the Judiciary’s Integrity and Independence, and you will earn our respect. You are given this opportunity to remove the stigma of a compromised judiciary after the removal of Lord President Tun Salleh Abas in 1988 by an all powerful Prime Minister. So, seize the moment and make a difference. –Din Merican
Everyone can give their opinion on the country’s Judiciary or any judicial decision but not to the extent of insulting the institution.
Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria(picture) said in other countries such as England, for example, the people were free to give their opinion because, indirectly, this could bring an improvement to the judicial system.
“It is good to give such opinions and this can assist us to develop our law. You can also write but not to the extent of committing contempt of court, for example.
“We are open and such criticism is normal, and we often hear that there are court decisions that are illogical and so on. Show proof if the judges’ decisions are unfair, biased or if there are elements of bribery involved. Prove it… don’t just talk,” he told reporters after opening the 46th Conference of the Malaysian Judges Council here today.
Also present were Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Raus Sharif, Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Richard Malanjum.
Arifin said as judges they could not defend themselves against such allegations and this was not fair to the judges.He said the instruction that judges should not forge close relations with politicians and businessmen was to avoid negative perception of the Judiciary.
“Some of the politicians and businessmen are involved in court cases. This instruction aims to prevent such things (biasness),” he said.
Commenting on the statement by former Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi that the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet had never given any instruction to the judiciary, Arifin said the statement was true.
On the conference attended by 120 judges throughout the country, the Chief Justice said the objective was to enable the judges to exchange views aimed at improving the Judiciary further
Everyone can give their opinion on the country’s Judiciary or any judicial decision but not to the extent of insulting the institution.
Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria(picture) said in other countries such as England, for example, the people were free to give their opinion because, indirectly, this could bring an improvement to the judicial system.
“It is good to give such opinions and this can assist us to develop our law. You can also write but not to the extent of committing contempt of court, for example.
“We are open and such criticism is normal, and we often hear that there are court decisions that are illogical and so on. Show proof if the judges’ decisions are unfair, biased or if there are elements of bribery involved. Prove it… don’t just talk,” he told reporters after opening the 46th Conference of the Malaysian Judges Council here today.
Also present were Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Raus Sharif, Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Richard Malanjum.
Arifin said as judges they could not defend themselves against such allegations and this was not fair to the judges.He said the instruction that judges should not forge close relations with politicians and businessmen was to avoid negative perception of the Judiciary.
“Some of the politicians and businessmen are involved in court cases. This instruction aims to prevent such things (biasness),” he said.
Commenting on the statement by former Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi that the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet had never given any instruction to the judiciary, Arifin said the statement was true.
On the conference attended by 120 judges throughout the country, the Chief Justice said the objective was to enable the judges to exchange views aimed at improving the Judiciary further
Tun CJ, it is the other way round. Please restore the Judiciary’s Integrity and Independence, and you will earn our respect. You are given this opportunity to remove the stigma of a compromised judiciary after the removal of Lord President Tun Salleh Abas in 1988 by an all powerful Prime Minister. So, seize the moment and make a difference. –Din Merican
Everyone can give their opinion on the country’s Judiciary or any judicial decision but not to the extent of insulting the institution.
Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria(picture) said in other countries such as England, for example, the people were free to give their opinion because, indirectly, this could bring an improvement to the judicial system.
“It is good to give such opinions and this can assist us to develop our law. You can also write but not to the extent of committing contempt of court, for example.
“We are open and such criticism is normal, and we often hear that there are court decisions that are illogical and so on. Show proof if the judges’ decisions are unfair, biased or if there are elements of bribery involved. Prove it… don’t just talk,” he told reporters after opening the 46th Conference of the Malaysian Judges Council here today.
Also present were Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Raus Sharif, Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Richard Malanjum.
Arifin said as judges they could not defend themselves against such allegations and this was not fair to the judges.He said the instruction that judges should not forge close relations with politicians and businessmen was to avoid negative perception of the Judiciary.
“Some of the politicians and businessmen are involved in court cases. This instruction aims to prevent such things (biasness),” he said.
Commenting on the statement by former Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi that the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet had never given any instruction to the judiciary, Arifin said the statement was true.
On the conference attended by 120 judges throughout the country, the Chief Justice said the objective was to enable the judges to exchange views aimed at improving the Judiciary furtherSaid Datuk Seri Najib Razak.a technicalmatter did not involve the judiciary like my SMS Shafee Abdullah,Judge Zaki dismiss Najib as a witness
Everyone can give their opinion on the country’s Judiciary or any judicial decision but not to the extent of insulting the institution.
Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria(picture) said in other countries such as England, for example, the people were free to give their opinion because, indirectly, this could bring an improvement to the judicial system.
“It is good to give such opinions and this can assist us to develop our law. You can also write but not to the extent of committing contempt of court, for example.
“We are open and such criticism is normal, and we often hear that there are court decisions that are illogical and so on. Show proof if the judges’ decisions are unfair, biased or if there are elements of bribery involved. Prove it… don’t just talk,” he told reporters after opening the 46th Conference of the Malaysian Judges Council here today.
Also present were Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Raus Sharif, Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Richard Malanjum.
Arifin said as judges they could not defend themselves against such allegations and this was not fair to the judges.He said the instruction that judges should not forge close relations with politicians and businessmen was to avoid negative perception of the Judiciary.
“Some of the politicians and businessmen are involved in court cases. This instruction aims to prevent such things (biasness),” he said.
Commenting on the statement by former Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi that the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet had never given any instruction to the judiciary, Arifin said the statement was true.
On the conference attended by 120 judges throughout the country, the Chief Justice said the objective was to enable the judges to exchange views aimed at improving the Judiciary furtherSaid Datuk Seri Najib Razak.a technicalmatter did not involve the judiciary like my SMS Shafee Abdullah,Judge Zaki dismiss Najib as a witness
According to evidence introduced at the trial and other sources, Abdul Razak contacted Najib’s chief of staff, Musa Safri, to ask Najib’s bodyguards, Azilah and Sirul, to “do something” about Altantuya. Musa was not required to appear as a witness. Deputy Commander Mastor Mohd Ariff, an associate of the two bodyguards, said members of the unit were required to follow all orders of their superiors without question, describing the unit’s members as “like robots” who would only take orders from their superiors. Abdul Razak, a civilian and friend of Najib’s, was not a superior officer.According to an affidavit filed by Abdul Razak, Azilah contacted Abdul Razak after Altantuya’s disappearance to say that “tonight encik (sir), you can sleep well.”
Testimony by the murdered woman’s cousin indicated that immigration records of Altantuya and the two Mongolian companions who had come toMalaysia with her to confront Abdul Razak disappeared from the government’s immigration files. She also responded to a question that she had seen a picture of Altantuya having dinner with Najib before she was hurriedly hushed up by both prosecution and defense lawyers.
Testimony by the murdered woman’s cousin indicated that immigration records of Altantuya and the two Mongolian companions who had come toMalaysia with her to confront Abdul Razak disappeared from the government’s immigration files. She also responded to a question that she had seen a picture of Altantuya having dinner with Najib before she was hurriedly hushed up by both prosecution and defense lawyers.
Nonetheless, Judge Mohd Zaki dismissed a bid in July to call Najib as a witness in the trial. Zaki also refused to call Balasubramaniam despite his written declaration, which implicated Najib in the events leading up to the murder. In addition to other lurid details, Balasubramaniam described text messages between Najib and Abdul Razak in which the latter was asking for help to avoid arrest.
Later, a series of text messages was made public indicating that Najib had been involved in finding a lawyer, Shafee Abdullah, to represent Abdul Razak. One message from Shafee to Najib said: “We provided (the police) everything, including old PDAs and notebooks and a couple of bills. Nothing incriminating.” Malaysia Today said the exchange raises questions if anything “incriminating” was kept from the police.
Besides allegations that Altantuya was the lover of both men, the case has raised additional concerns of corruption at the top of the United Malays National Organisation, the leading political party in the national ruling coalition. The Mongolian woman appears to have been the translator on a controversial transaction in which Malaysia, with Najib as defense minister, paid €1 billion for French submarines, netting a company tied to Abdul Razak US$111 million in “commissions.”readmore http://thetwilightjudicialreview.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-did-judge-mohd-zaki-dismissed-to.html
No comments:
Post a Comment