 |
|
| The Idiot Lamin Yunus |
Raping Justice Again and Again Although Lamin Yunus, president of the court of appeals that upheld Anwar's conviction and sentencing for corruption, may have wrote a 59-page judgement, it is 59 pages that insults the intelligence of every fair-minded Malaysian. There is so much rubbish in it that it was no surprise that Lamin chose not to read it out in court. Consider this sentence: "(The judges were) inclined to think that there is a high degree of probability that the claims of heterosexual and homosexual misconduct were true. "(Anwar) resorted to such improper and unlawful measures merely for the purpose of saving himself from embarrassment and protecting himself from criminal action, thereby at the same time preserving his public image and position," High degree of probability indeed! There is in fact, not a shred of evidence and the principal witnesses such as Ummi Hafilda Ali and Azizan Abu Bakar were soundly discredited. And what do they mean by "such improper and unlawful measures?" All Anwar did was to ask the police to investigate the matter. How can that qualify as "improper" and "unlawful." The judges concluded that Anwar should have simply made a police report and left the matter at that. But even if he had done just that, the police would have still used the same tactics of detaining and questioning the poison pen writers. What is so bloody "unlawful" about that? Look at all those organizers of the Black 14 rally who were detained and questioned and intimidated. If the police had mistreated the detainees -- and there is no evidence of that against Ummi and Azizan -- then shouldn't the police have to be arrested and charged for such "unlawful" tactics in addition to Anwar? What we are witnessing is the worst prostitution of justice in the country by filthiest of judges wallowing in the cesspool of lies and deceit. |
| Canadian Journalist Jailed in Malaysia UPDATE! 14 September 1999 His Excellency Dato' Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad Prime Minister Jabatan Perdana Menteri Jalan Dato' Onn Kuala Lumpur 50502 Malaysia fax: +603 238 3784 Your Excellency, On behalf of Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE), an independent organisation which defends freedom of speech worldwide, I am writing to urge you to do everything possible to overturn the jail sentence handed down to Canadian journalist Murray Hiebert on 11 September. Hiebert, a correspondent with the "Far Eastern Economic Review", was jailed after Court of Appeal President Lamin Yunus upheld a lower court's "contempt of court" conviction. He has been unable to leave your country for over two years while the appeal process dragged on in his case, having had his passport confiscated, and now he has been sent to Sungai Buloh Prison for six weeks. We would urge you to take note that democratic countries do not jail journalists in relation to their work. In Malaysia, no journalists have been sent to prison because of their work and we are at pains to understand why Hiebert should be the first. In fact, Hiebert's lawyers say he is the first journalist in almost fifty years to be imprisoned for contempt in a Commonwealth nation. We appreciate that his sentence was reduced from three months to six weeks but we maintain that journalists should not be sent to jail for any amount of time in relation to their work. Hiebert was first sentenced to three months in jail in September 1997 for the 23 January 1997 article "See You in Court," which covered the growing number of defamation lawsuits in Malaysia. He reported that Chandra Sri Ram, the wife of a prominent judge, brought a suit against the Kuala Lumpur International School after her son was taken off the debating team. The article mentioned that the case had been processed speedily by the courts and that the student's father, Gopal Sri Ram, was a prominent judge. Chandra then brought the contempt suit against Hiebert despite the fact that the original suit regarding her son was settled out of court. Lawyers attending various stages of Hiebert's trial report serious irregularities in the legal proceedings. In particular, they note that evidence was not admitted to the appeals court showing that the journalist had already published a correction on 7 August 1997 in response to the charge that he had misrepresented Judge Gopal Sri Ram's role in his son's case. Furthermore, according to a lawyer observing Hiebert's appeal process, the charge of contempt was applied incorrectly. The judge wrongly based the contempt conviction in part on his finding that the article contained what he called three "baseless lies", despite the fact that information in the article were not actually lies, but either errors or different interpretations of the facts. In any case, according to law, "lies and errors" are not the basis of contempt of court. We note that Hiebert's imprisonment came just prior to the start of the Commonwealth Law Conference in Kuala Lumpur, and that at least two Malaysian opposition politicians are boycotting the conference in protest over Hiebert's jailing. International jurists are not likely to support such a decision either. CJFE urges Your Excellency to immediately pardon Hiebert and release him from prison. We further suggest that you review the country's laws, which in our opinion wrongly allow journalists to be prosecuted under criminal laws. Yours Sincerely, Kristina Stockwood cc. Dato Abdulah Badawi Minister of Home Affairs, Jalan Dato' Onn, 50502 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Fax: 011-603-238-3784 Mr. Kapil Sibal, Chair Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, c/o Centre for Human Rights Palais des Nations 8-14 avenue de la Paix, 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland Fax: 41-22-917-01-23 E-mail: webadmin.hchr@unog.ch The Hon. Jean Chrétien Prime Minister House of Commons P.O. Box 1103 Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 Canada Fax: +613 941 6900 E-mail: pm@pm.gc.ca |
| September 13, 1999 His Excellency Dato' Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad Prime Minister Jabatan Perdana Menteri Jalan Dato' Onn Kuala Lumpur 50502 Malaysia VIA FACSIMILE: 60-3-238-3784 Your Excellency, The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) is outraged by the Malaysian Court of Appeal's decision to imprison Far Eastern Economic Review correspondent Murray Hiebert for contempt of court. Hiebert's sentencing makes Malaysia the only Commonwealth country to have imprisoned a journalist on contempt charges in half a century, according to his lawyers. On September 11, a three-judge panel led by Judge Lamin Yunus upheld an earlier high court conviction and ordered Hiebert to be jailed for six weeks. The judges permitted Hiebert to make a few telephone calls before police escorted him to Sungai Buloh prison, where he began serving the sentence while his lawyers prepare an appeal. The Shah Alam High Court originally sentenced Hiebert to three months in prison on September 4, 1997. The contempt charge stems from a January 23, 1997, article that Hiebert wrote for the Far Eastern Economic Review--- a prestigious English-language weekly based in Hong Kong and published by Dow Jones & Company. The article, entitled "See You in Court," focused on the increasingly litigious nature of Malaysian society and made reference to one case involving the son of a prominent judge, Gopal Sri Ram. Hiebert noted in his piece that many were "surprised at the speed with which the case," brought by the judge's wife, had "raced through Malaysia's legal labyrinth." The lower court determined that Hiebert's article had "scandalized the court, was calculated to excite prejudice against the plaintiff, and was designed to exert pressure on the court." For the past two years Hiebert has been free on bail but forbidden to leave Malaysia. Hiebert's passport has been held by the government ever since his first conviction. His wife and children are in Washington, D.C., awaiting his release. As a nonpartisan organization of journalists dedicated to the defense of our colleagues around the world, CPJ is deeply dismayed by Hiebert's imprisonment. We believe that no journalist should be jailed for what he or she writes. We believe that in cases where journalists knowingly distort the truth, there are sufficient remedies available for redress in civil law. CPJ is particularly concerned that Hiebert's harsh sentence might be seen as a warning to journalists covering the politically charged trial of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, whose case has brought international scrutiny to Malaysia's judicial system. Both Hiebert's and Anwar's cases are expected to come up for discussion during the 12th Commonwealth Law Conference, which began in Kuala Lumpur today and brings more than a thousand lawyers and judges from the Commonwealth countries to Malaysia. CPJ believes that economic advancement and democratic reform are possible only through the open exchange of ideas by an uninhibited press, which must be free to report critically on all branches of government, including the judiciary, without fear of imprisonment. We urge Your Excellency to use the power of your office to pardon Murray Hiebert, so that he may be immediately released from prison to rejoin his family. CPJ also respectfully asks that you order a thorough and impartial investigation into Hiebert's prosecution, to determine whether there was any miscarriage of justice. And finally, we encourage Your Excellency to press for the elimination of provisions in Malaysia's legal code that allow journalists to be imprisoned for their work. We thank you for your attention to this urgent matter, and await your response. Sincerely, Ann K. Cooper Executive Director |
| Tuesday November 20 Going off the constitutional path Param Cumaraswamy 2:49pm, Tue: comment I am dismayed over the statement by Lamin Yunus, the former President of the Court of Appeal, regarding Raja Aziz Addruse’s remarks on the appointment of Justice Ahmad Fairuz as Chief Judge of the High Court of Malaya, as reported in The Star on Nov 13. In the daily, Lamin was reported to have criticised Raja Aziz over his article in the Bar Council publication,Insaf. In his article, Raja Aziz, a constitutional lawyer, criticised Ahmad’s appointment last month saying that the appointment caused apprehension among members of the Malaysian Bar as many of his judgments were deemed ‘unpopular’. “In my humble view, this is not merely a question of free speech or expression in a democratic country. This view is tantamount to criticising the ability or inability of the King to appoint a suitable person,” said Lamin in the report. Lamin’s view clearly goes against the grain of the constitutional position of the King under the Malaysian Constitution over judicial appointments. Under Article 40(1A) of the Malaysian Constitution where the King is to act in accordance with advice “he should accept and act in accordance with such advice”. Under Article 122B of the Constitution, the chief judge is appointed by the King acting on the advice of the prime minister, who consults the chief justice and the Conference of Rulers. Inconsistent with past judgments In delivering the judgement of the Court of Appeal in Re: Dato Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim (2000) 2 MLJ 483, Lamin who presided the court interpreted articles 40(1A) and 122(B) regarding judicial appointments as follows: On Article 40(1A) he said: “Clearly therefore the Yang di-Pertuan Agong must act upon the advice of the prime minister. The advice envisaged by Article 40(1A) is the direct advice given by the recommender and not advice obtained after consultation”. On Article 122(B) he said: “The intention of this article is clear i.e. the Yang di-Pertuan Agong must act on the advice of the prime minister.” From these interpretations it is clear that the choice of judicial appointments is not that of the King. In the case of chief judges, the choice is that of the prime minister, after consulting the chief justice and the Conference of Rulers. On the process of these constitutional consultations Lamin said in the same judgment: “When the prime minister has advised that a person be appointed a judge, and if the Conference of Rulers does not agree or withholds its views or delays the giving of its advice with or without reasons, legally the prime minister can insist that the appointment be proceeded with.” In the context of this constitutional framework, Lamin’s present statement that Raja Aziz’s remarks were critical of the King’s “ability to choose a suitable candidate” is not only incorrect but inconsistent with his own earlier judicial decision. Recommender questioned Principle 13 of the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary provides: “Promotion of judges, whenever such a system exists, should be based on objective factors, in particular ability, integrity and experience.” Similarly Principle 17 of the Beijing Statement of Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary in the Lawasia Region provides: “Promotion of judges must be based on objective assessment of factors such as competence, integrity, independence and experience.” The guarantee of judicial independence is for the benefit of the judged and not the judges. Therefore, if the internationally and regionally required criteria are not seen applied in the selection process for judicial appointments and promotions, then it is open to anyone including a member of the public to publicly question such selections. In doing so in Malaysia, and within its constitutional framework, one is not questioning the King but the recommender, i.e. the prime minister whose advice the King is obliged to accept. Lamin, I am afraid, has certainly deviated and gone off the constitutional path since his retirement. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PARAM CUMARASWAMY is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers. |