Malaysian judge refuses to free opposition leader KUALA LUMPUR, March 9 (AFP) - A Malaysian judge ruled Friday that police have a right to detain opposition leader Mohamad Ezam Mohamad Nor while they investigate him for alleged sedition. Separately, the operator of a website which supports jailed ex-deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim said that police who were investigating the same offence seized a computer from his house. Ezam was detained Monday following his alleged call in Sunday's edition of Utusan Malaysia newspaper for mass protests to topple Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's government. Ezam, who is youth chief of the National Justice Party (Keadilan) headed by Anwar's wife, said he was misquoted. He said he spoke only of planned nationwide peaceful protests against alleged corruption and cronyism. On Wednesday police obtained a court order to detain Ezam in custody till Saturday for investigations. His lawyers challenged the order in the High Court but the judge upheld it. Justice Abdul Wahab Patail said reported plans to hold street rallies "indicates that the scope of investigation is not as simple and narrow" as it involved the "participation and cooperation" of others. "I cannot therefore say that the order of remand is wrong and would therefore confirm the remand order of four days to Saturday," he added. Ezam, who was handcuffed as he was led out of court, said: "Another day in the lockup is nothing to me... my arrest from day one has raised many concerns. "I will pursue my earlier intentions to take legal action against Utusan Malaysia for purportedly plotting with some UMNO (United Malays National Organisation) leaders to give a very negative image of me." Defence lawyers said police, in seeking the remand, called for more time to question Ezam to "find out the plan and motive in organising or inciting the public to participate in illegal gatherings." Police also said they needed to "record intelligence statements to determine if the suspect's action had threatened national security." Ezam could face up to three years' jail if charged with sedition and convicted. Meanwhile, Raja Petra Raja Kamarudin who operates the FreeAnwar website said police raided his house Wednesday and seized a computer following a complaint about seditious articles on the website. "They (police) said my articles on the website are very seditious, and that posting such news on the website means inciting people to demonstrate and encouraging chaos in the country," he told AFP. Three opposition figures have been charged with sedition in the past 14 months. Two of them -- one of Anwar's lawyers and an opposition newspaper editor -- are still on trial while a third was convicted and fined. Demonstrations are illegal in Malaysia without a permit and were once a rare occurrence. But street protests have become more common since Mahathir sacked his heir apparent Anwar in September 1998. Anwar was later convicted of abuse of power and sodomy and jailed for a total of 15 years in what he says was political persecution. The government denies any political motive.

From: <name removed on request> To: bala@malaysia.net Subject: Is the Judiciary beholden to the Govt? Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 07:10:54 PST Mr.Bala may I request you to forward this to your Sangkancil mailing list? There is no copyright.Please disseminate to news agencies and reformasi webmasters.Translation to Bahasa Malaysia welcomed. 1.The PM repeatedly states that the judiciary is so independent that UMNO was banned.The rebuttal is simple.Malaysia's judiciary prior to the Tun Salleh Abas case was highly regarded and independent.After his dismissal it became subservient to the executive branch..Both the heads of judiciary after that have been corrupt men.They oversee what are little more than kangaroo courts. 2.The Anti Corruption Agency found enough evidence for a prima facie case  of corrupt practice against the head of the judiciary (Eusoff Chin) more than a year ago.Guess who is sitting on the file?Why? So he can manipulate the judiciary! 3.The AG was an obscure functionary who was brought from nowhere as most observers know. He was selected on Tun Daim's recommendation through Tan Sri Vincent Tan. Proof of this relationship can be seen at http:www.malaysia.net/special.Would he not be indebted to those who plucked him out of nowhere?A satisfied PM has extended his term twice. 4.The judge who heard Datuk Nalla's case and DSAI's habeas corpus case and the chief prosecuter for DSAI are brothers from Sabah. Dato Wahab Patail's appointment as judge was personally recommended by AG Datuk Mohtar.They are very close family friends from the time Mohtar was based in Sabah.Is it a mere coincidence these three figure so prominently in DSAI's cases?Justice Wahab Patail seems to have been transferred in just to hear as many DSAI related cases as the Government can get away with. 5.Datuk Gani Patail had been going almost every day to Bukit Aman before DSAI's arrest.To make the police's investigation papers as water-tight as possible perhaps? And yet the AG has the cheek to say their case is based on the papers submitted by the police. 6.Justice Augustine Paul is the most junior judge in the Criminal Court.He was transferred two weeks before Anwar's hearing.His elevation to judge was personally moved by AG Mohtar himself. 7. DSAI's habeas corpus was to be heard by Justice Vohrah. Wahab Patail called Vohrah to say Eusoff Chin had asked him(Wahab) to hear the case.This is 1 week after Eusoff Chin told The Star that he did not realise that Wahab Patail had heard a case in which his brother Gani had been the prosecuter.Chin admitted it should not have happened.DSAI's lawyer Sulaiman Abdullah requested Wahab Patail on the 24th October to transfer the case to another judge.Shamelessly Justice Wahab Patail refused to do so. 8.In the latest round of musical chairs,Justice Vohrah has reportedly been transferred to the Civil Court.Lawyers will remember he was transferred from the Civil Court  to the Criminal during the Ayer Molek case.Now he has been transferred again to avoid hearing DSAI related cases. 9.Umi Hafilda Ali and other key witnesses have been seen visiting the AG's chambers together with police.Has the the AG's chambers departed from  previous practice and is now coaching witnesses? 10.The judge Hasnah who allowed DSAI to testify regarding his injuries was informed  of her transfer the very next day. Keen observers of the  Judiciary have known for some time now that the dictum "Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done" has no relevance in Mahathir's Malaysia since the Tun Salleh Abas dimissal. If this is the extent to which the Government will go in the DSAI case what hope does a foreign investor who runs afoul of the Government in the future have?

the disgraceful stories of wahab patail

wahab patail - a member of mahathir's idiotic judiciary

Anwar Sex Trial Stirs New Controversy By Reme Ahmad KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - The sex trial of ex-finance minister Anwar Ibrahim got off to a contentious start Monday when government prosecutors again rewrote the charges and the defense asked the judge to throw out the case. Attorney-General Mohtar Abdullah appeared to stun defense lawyers at the outset of the new criminal trial when he said the charges had been amended for the second time. Defense lawyers objected to the prosecution's decision to change the date on which Anwar and his adopted brother, Sukma Darmawan, are alleged to have sodomized the Anwar family's former driver, and said they would press the judge to end the trial. ''The amendment is not appropriate for the prosecution and not fair to the accused,'' Anwar lawyer Raja Aziz Addruse said. The prosecution's move threatened to compound controversy surrounding a trial that has divided Malaysia and looked sure to produce lurid testimony. The former cabinet minister was brought into court from a local jail without handcuffs and wore a long-sleeved white shirt and a button with the emblem of his wife's advocacy group. In April, Anwar was sentenced to six years in jail on four corruption charges he says were part of a plot by Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and associates to ruin his political career. Judge Abdul Wahab Patail, who last month set the trial dates, had raised eyebrows by barring news organizations from reporting commentary on the trial, including outbursts by Anwar. Wahab Patail, the brother of one of the government prosecutors, was recently replaced by Judge Ariffin Jaka in the case. It was not clear if the first judge's order would stand. Anwar was arrested in September and indicted on five counts each of sodomy and corruption. One of the sex counts alleged he had sodomized the family's former driver, Azizan Abu Bakar, in May 1994. The charge carries a maximum punishment of 20 years in jail and whipping. Government prosecutors amended the charge in April, changing the date to May 1992. The attorney-general, who is leading the prosecution, said Monday the date had been changed again to the period between January and March 1993. ''It has been amended?'' Judge Ariffin Jaka asked. ''This is being amended again,'' the attorney-general said. Anwar and Sukma, who are being tried together and sat side by side during the proceedings, both pleaded not guilty to the amended charges. Sukma's lawyer Karpal Singh said the Tivoli Villa suburban apartments where Anwar and Sukma allegedly sodomized the former driver had not been built in 1992. ''In May 1992, the place where the offence was allegedly committed did not exist,'' Karpal said, adding that the prosecution had learned the fact through a defense notice. Karpal said he would seek to have the case thrown out on the grounds of mala fide, or bad faith. ''He comes in with amendment after amendment after amendment,'' Karpal said, referring to the attorney-general. ''Doesn't it show that he has not discharged his duty as the most senior legal officer in the land? What is being done is not prosecution but persecution.'' The judge said: ''It could be a mistake.'' Karpal said: ''How many mistakes can you make? May 1994, you find nothing in it. May 1992, you cannot find, now January to March 1993. If at any point the date is changed, the proceedings have to be adjourned and have a fresh trial.'' Karpal said he wanted to file a motion to strike out the proceedings for being an abuse of process. The attorney-general defended the decision to amend the charge, saying he could have waited until after the former driver had testified against Anwar and Sukma. ''We are fair,'' he said. Judge Ariffin adjourned the case for the day and said he would take up the defense motion to end the trial when the court reconvenes Tuesday at 9 a.m. (0100 GMT).

THE CONDUCT OF THE HIGH COURT TRIAL TO DATE –   QUESTIONS OF INDEPENDENCE AND A FAIR TRIAL    THE "SELECTION" OF THE JUDGE S. AUGUSTINE PAUL J.  For many of the legal profession, especially after observing the Nallakaruppan episode, there are serious concerns as to whether Anwar will get a fair trial. Many lawyers and members of the public in fact cynically already "know" the outcome of the trial in the sense that there will be a conviction on at least one count. It is clear that this is politically necessary to put Anwar away physically and politically.   A question immediately arises as to the fairness and independence of the trial in the process of selection of the judge itself for the following reasons. The High Court of Kuala Lumpur is organised into divisions, Criminal, Civil, Commercial and Special Powers. Each division has several courts with sitting judges in each. Cases filed or registered in these courts are then heard by the judge sitting in that particular court unless for some reason he disqualifies himself from hearing the case or transfers the case to another. The process of transfer is usually transparent and upon the application of the parties involved. The system is set up in this way to prevent allegations of lawyers attempting to have their cases heard by a particular judge or "fixing" the judge. Similarly in the Criminal Division, there are two sitting judges, Dato K.C. Vohrah and Dato Wahab Patail. Anwar's lawyers were told by the Criminal Registry that his case was registered in both courts. Judge Wahab Patail is clearly disqualified from hearing Anwar's case as he was involved in Nallakaruppan's case. No explanation has been given as to why the senior judge in the Criminal Division, i.e. Vohrah is not hearing Anwar's case. Vohrah is known to the legal profession as an independent judge. Is this why he is not hearing the case? He is the most senior High Court judge in Malaysia and has plenty of criminal trial experience. Augustine on the other hand was recently elevated as a High Court judge in May this year and was transferred from Malacca very recently to the Special Powers Division in the High Court. How and why has he been picked in such an arbitrary manner by the Chief Justice to hear Anwar's case? Is this a case of the prosecution fixing their judge to obtain a particular verdict? The facts would suggest so.    INITIAL PRELIMINARY RULINGS BY THE JUDGE ON BAIL AND ACCESS TO LAWYERS  a) Bail  Augustine Paul denied Anwar bail after he claimed trial to all the charges on 5 October 1998. The prosecution objected to bail on the ground that there were allegations of tampering with witnesses by Anwar. No clear or concrete evidence was produced to the court of such tampering- it remained a mere allegation. However Augustine explained that his denial of bail was based on the prosecution allegation AND the fact that some of the charges against Anwar involved tampering with witnesses in the very facts alleged. The judge seemed to be completely overlooking the fact that the charges allege tampering by Anwar using his power in his capacity as Deputy Prime Minister. He is now no more the Deputy Prime Minister -hence such alleged tampering in that manner could no longer arise! The denial of bail for these offences is unprecedented. All previous accused charged under this particular Ordinance for corruption have been allowed bail. The denial of bail looks clearly politically motivated.  b) The judge then went on to make a number of rulings against the interest of the defence such as only allowing three out of eight lawyers to visit Anwar in detention at any time. Only two designated lawyers would be allowed to speak to Anwar in court at any time. When the defence asked that 5 plainclothes policemen placed around Anwar in the dock stand at the back of the court, the judge said "he did not want to interfere with security matters".    INADEQUATE TIME FOR PREPARATION OF THE DEFENCE  The High Court only allowed a trial date of less than one month from October 5, 1998. The date given by the Court was based on a date suggested by the Deputy Public Prosecutor. Despite a request by lawyers for Anwar for a trial date of two months from October 6, 1998, it was turned down by the Court, although the Court did rule, after repeated requests by the Anwar's lawyers, that if there was still inadequate time for preparation of the defence, the lawyers for Anwar could write to the Court for an extension of time. Malaysian courts generally allow criminal trial dates of 3 months or more to enable the accused's lawyers to prepare their defence. There was greater need for time in the Anwar case as he was incommunicado from September 20, 1998 detention date.    UNPRECEDENTED NUMBER OF POLICEMEN IN COURT  So many police officers (in plainclothes or in uniform) in Court, were stationed in Court. It is believed that they constituted the majority in Court, thus preventing many family members and reporters from attending Court. Unlike most court cases, where any member of the public can come to court, the police prevented members of the public from coming to hear the Anwar case, saying that they had orders to do so.    HARASSMENT OF LAWYERS  As of October 10, 1998, starting from the time he was sacked as DPM, eight of Anwar's team of lawyers had been questioned by the police using provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the pretext of asking for information in respect of police investigations into alleged tampering of witnesses, police attempted to question Anwar's lawyers on matters directly or indirectly related to his charges. Several lawyers in the Anwar defence team are being tailed by the Special Branch (secret police). Lawyers believe that their house telephones, office telephones and even hand telephones are being monitored by the police.    DR MAHATHIR'S STATEMENT ON FOREIGN OBSERVERS AT TRIAL  a) The Prime Minister on October 21, 1998 is reported to have said that the Government will not entertain any application by foreigners to be observers at the forthcoming trial of Dato 'Seri Anwar "as the presence of foreign observers will put pressure on this country's judges". This statement gives the impression that attendance in Court is at the discretion of the Executive branch of Government. By making this remark, the Government of Dr Mahathir is actually given a directive to the judiciary.  b) It is not for the Government to decide whether any one ought to be given observer status at any trial. Such a decision can only be made by the Court. In the Lim Guan Eng appeal [wherein he appealed against his conviction for sedition] in August 1998, the Federal Court granted observer status to representatives of Amnesty International and International Commission of Jurists, after an application was made by defence counsel.  c) Under section 8 of the Malaysian Criminal Procedure Code, the place in which any criminal Court is held for the purpose of inquiring or trying any offence shall be deemed an open and public Court to which the public generally have access.   The Anwar Report October 24, 1998

PRESS STATEMENT: 23 SEPTEMBER 1999 NO MORE ABUSE OF POLICE POWERS! SUARAM views with great concern, today's decision by Justice Wahab Patail to reject the application for revision on the remand order of Sivarasa Rasiah, Dr. Hatta Ramli, Azmin Ali and Hishamuddin Rais. The remand of these men, and of Tian Chua, Mohd. Ezam and Dr. Badrul, is another form of detention without trial in Malaysia. The pretense of keeping them in police lock-ups for 'further investigation' is in fact tantamount to punishing them for peacefully exercising their right to engage in peaceful assembly, freedom of opinion and association. SUARAM recognises all seven men to be prisoners of conscience and calls for their immediate release. SUARAM is also concerned to learn about the shooting of Dr. Tai Eng Teck. The excessive force used by the Royal Malaysian Police has continued for too long. While we acknowledge that there have been police officers killed in the line of duty, we wish to point out that in 1999 alone, SUARAM has documented over 60 people shot dead by the police, including the infamous case of the death of an eight-months pregnant woman. All these people, including Dr. Tai, remain innocent as they were never pronouced guilty or given the death penalty in a court of law. SUARAM condemns these arbitrary acts of sanctioned executions by the police force and reiterate for an independent commission to investigate all forms of police abuses. Until all Malaysians pressure for this independent commission to be established, we are all as guilty those who pulled the trigger on Dr. Tai and many other innocent Malaysians. Released by:   Elizabeth Wong Coordinator SUARAM TYPOGRAPHIC ERROR IN LINE BEGINNING: "While we acknowledge that there have been police officers killed in the line of duty, we wish to point out that in 1999 alone, SUARAM has documented over 60 people shot dead by the police, including the infamous case of the death of an eight-months pregnant woman." SHOULD READ: "While we acknowledge that there have been police officers killed in the line of duty, we wish to point out that in 1998 alone, SUARAM has documented over 60 people shot dead by the police, including the infamous case of the death of an eight-months pregnant woman." WE APOLOGISE FOR ANY INCONVENIENCES CAUSED.   --------------------------------------- Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) 383, 1st Floor, Jalan 5/59 46000 Petaling Jaya, Selangor Malaysia tel: 60-3-7943525 fax: 60-3-7943526

Malaysian judge denies Anwar trial ``tainted'' By Jalil Hamid KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 28 (Reuters) - A Malaysian judge on Wednesday rejected lawyers' claims that the trial of sacked finance minister Anwar Ibrahim would be less than totally fair, and dismissed an application for his release. Judge Abdul Wahab Patail, in dismissing the habeas corpus application at the Kuala Lumpur High Court, threw out defence submissions that the trial had been tainted. The trial is due to open on Monday. ``These are far reaching and scandalous allegations, as incredible as an allegation as being told an alien spaceship has landed in Merdeka Square,'' the judge said, referring to a major city landmark. ``The submissions only show that whatever grievance the applicant may have, political or otherwise, is clearly not the subject of a habeas corpus application.'' The application was originally made while Anwar was being held under the controversial Internal Security Act (ISA), which allows for indefinite detention without trial. Anwar's lawyers pushed ahead with it despite his release from police custody under the draconian act. He was transferred to an ordinary prison earlier this month. The former heir apparent of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad remains in detention pending trial, having been refused bail. He faces 10 charges of corruption and sodomy, which is a crime in Malaysia, and has pleaded not guilty. Judge Abdul Wahab strongly denied an allegation by Anwar's lawyers that his arrest and detention had been tainted by ``overwhelming government conspiracy.'' Any subsequent trial would not be either, the judge said. One of Anwar's eight lawyers told the court they pursued the issue because they wanted to press the authorities to state why the ISA was used against him in the first place. ``This is not a simple case of arrest and detention but much more,'' lawyer Sulaiman Abdullah said. The lawyers accused the authorities of the legal concept of mala fides -- ill will. Habeas corpus is used primarily to secure the release of a person detained unlawfully or without legal justification. Anwar's wife Wan Azizah Wan Ismail also filed an affidavit supporting the application. She believed Anwar's release from ISA detention was ``to stifle this very application by rendering it purportedly futile and academic,'' she said in the affidavit. ``This is yet another indication of mala fides on the part of the respondent and the government of Malaysia.'' Lawyers argued that Anwar, sacked on September 2 and arrested on September 20 under the ISA, was the victim of a high-level conspiracy. Legal experts said the High Court's dismissal had no major bearing on Anwar's case. Anwar was arrested after leading thousands of anti-government protesters through the streets of the capital calling for Mahathir to resign. Anwar was charged with sodomy and corruption after his arrest. On October 14, the police said they had released Anwar from ISA detention and shifted him from the federal police headquarters in the capital to the nearby Sungai Buloh prison.

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 06:01:54 GMT From: Yap Yok Foo <yfyap@pop.jaring.my> Newsgroups: soc.culture.singapore, soc.culture.malaysia, jaring.general Subject: Re: Fears over fair trial for Anwar 29th Oct 1998 MALAYSIA: Judge rejects claims by Anwar By Sheila McNulty in Kuala Lumpur A Malaysian High Court judge has rejected allegations by Anwar Ibrahim, the former deputy prime minister, that his detention was part of a high-level conspiracy to keep him from challenging Mahathir Mohamad, the prime minister. "There has been a conspiracy right from the beginning," Mr Anwar's counsel, Sulaiman Abdullah, told the court. He insisted Mr Anwar's impending trial on charges of sodomy and corruption was "tainted by mala fide" (bad faith). These were "far-reaching and scandalous allegations", said Judge Abdul Wahab Patail in dismissing an application for a writ of habeas corpus to free Mr Anwar ahead of his November 2 trial. The judge said the claim was as incredible "as being told an alien spaceship" had "landed in Merdeka (Independence) Square". It could not be "for any other purpose but to contrive to be sensational and keep alive a wholly unsupportable application". Independence Square has been the focal point of anti-government demonstrations, which began with the sacking of Mr Anwar on September 2 for having "low morals" and his subsequent detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA). The Act permits detention without trial of those deemed a threat to national security. On October 14 the authorities lifted the ISA order but did not release him because the High Court denied him bail in connection with charges of sodomy and corruption, to which Mr Anwar has pleaded innocent. The judge said that it was out of his jurisdiction to contest the High Court decision Mr Anwar be held on remand.

Salam Reformasi KEBURUKAN EUSOFF CHIN LEBIH TERSERLAH Setelah gambar-gambar Eusoff Chin dan rakan peguamnya terbongkar maka keburukan Eusoff Chin kini menguguat kedaulatan sistem kehakiman kita. Permuafakatan hakim-hakim yang terlibat dengan Eusoff Chin menunjukkan bahawa sistem keadilan kita sudah terancam dan ancaman ini disokong oleh Bapa Rasuah Negara Malaysia , Dr Mahathir. Terdapat satu lagi lapuran yang telah kami terima yang menunjukkan bahawa Eusoff Chin menggunakan isteri ke 3 beliau untuk digunakan sebagai kenderaan bagi lebih mengaut kekayaan melalui cara yang salah. Isteri Eusoff Chin, Rosaimi Mustaffa mempunyai rakan kongsi bernama Zamani Hj Ibrahim (yang berpejabat di Seremban) dan mempunyai satu syarikat guaman bersama Mohd Fozi Mohd Zami dan V.P Siva ( Sivaparamjothi a/l Velupillai) adik kepada V.K Lingham. V.P Siva adalah penasihat Undang-Undang Mutiara  Telekom kepunyaan Vincent Tan. V.K Lingham ialah penasihat Eric Chia semasa di Pewaja Steel. Jelas mereka ini adalah anak emas Dr Mahathir. Disini nampak jelas terdapat satu permuafakatan yang kurang sihat dalam sistem perundangan kita. Sisitem yang korup dengan sokongan korup Dr Mahathir Mohamed hanya merugikan negara. Pendedahan demi pendedahan bakal berlaku. Eusoff Chin sepatutnya MELETAK JAWATAN denganterbongkarnya kepincangan beliau. Diantara yang mengikut telunjuk Eusoff Chin ialah ; Lamin Yunus, Mokhtar Sidin, Malik Ishak, Wahab Patail, Edgar Joseph Jr, Ahmad Fairus dan James Wong. Manakala isteri Eusoff Chin bersekongkol dengan V.K Lingham , V.P Siva, Mohd Fozi , Zamani Hj Ibrahim, Raja Segaran dan D.P Vijindran. Peguam Negara Mokhtar Abdullah dan Abdul Gani Patail adalah di antara perancang jahat yang menentukan kes-kes yang perlu berpihak kepada rakan mereka atau mereka sendiri. Inilah sistem kita. Kita lah kekotoran yang berlaku dalam negara kita. Mahathir dibelakang kehancuran Malaysia. Heret Mahathir ke Mahakamah. Eusoff Chin digesa letak jawatan.

YANG ARIF HAKIM-HAKIM BADUT Dalam kita memperkatakan soal pementasan Sandiwara Sauk dan rentetan isu mengenai Pesta Filem Gabra SeMalaysia itu, jangan sesekali kita lupa perkara-perkara besar lainnya seperti krisis keyakinan rakyat dan dunia terhadap sistem kehakiman dan pengadilan di Malaysia. Walaupun kita ada ramai hakim, kita dapati hakim-hakim yang sama duduk mengendalikan kes-kes yang melibatkan kerajaan, UMNO dan Mahathir. Bila hakim-hakim ini ada, umum boleh agak apa hasil keputusannya nanti. Walau sebernas mana hujah pihak yang satu lagi, pihak kerajaan / UMNO / Mahathir serta geng-geng mereka akan pasti menang. Keputusan-keputusan yang tak masuk akal adalah lumrah. Memang benar kata Tun Suffian, kita yang tak buat salah memang akan berasa tak selamat jika dihadapkan di Mahkamah tertentu dewasa ini. Hakim-hakim kita ramai yang bagus dan tekun bertugas sebaiknya walau sentiasa diganggu orang politik (baca UMNO dan Mahathir) dan tidak mendapat imbuhan sewajarnya. Kesilapan memang ada kerana mereka juga manusia biasa. Tapi terdapat sekumpulan hakim badut yang turut menghantui, mengugut dan memalukan kewujudan mereka ini. Hakim-hakim badut ni rata-ratanya tak layak jadi hakim pun. Bukan saja ilmu dan pengalaman yang kurang, rupa pun tak ada!  Mereka ada rekod zaman silam yang disimpan Mahathir. Ada juga yang turut taksub dengan Mahathir dan UMNO hinggakan mereka membelakangkan keadilan. "Ketenteraman negara" memerlukan pengorbanan dan adalah nanti sesiapa yang sengaja dijadikan korban. Segala keterangan dan kesaksian yang jelas palsu akan diterima. Ada orang UMNO mengaku ulama turut mengiakannya kerana "darurat". Apa lagi, menggila sakanlah hakim-hakim badut ni. Apa peduli rakyat kata. Orang luarpun tak boleh menyibuk. Semua kerana mereka mendapat perlindungan penuh dari Mahathir dan selepasnya pulak nanti, dari UMNO yang mereka yakini akan terus merangkul kuasa sampai bila-bila. Di peringkat Mahkamah Tinggi, Hakim duduk sendirian. Kita akan dengar nama-nama seperti Augustine Paul, R.K.Nathan, Wahab Patail, Ariffin Jaka dan Low Hop Bing berkali-kali. Anak-anak sekolah rendah pun boleh agak keputusan yang bakal mereka buat. Ramai peguam cuba sedaya upaya untuk tidak menfailkan kes-kes pelanggan mereka dengan hakim-hakim sebegini. Namun tak semua berjaya sebab penentuan hakim mana yang bicara kes akan dibuat oleh ketua mereka, Hakim Besar Malaya (Wan Adnan bekas wakil rakyat BN peranakan Terengganu) kalau tidak pun dari Ketua Hakim Negara (Eusof Chin yang terkenal tu) sendiri. Satu panggilan telefon dari mereka ni sudah cukup untuk menukar korum. Di peringkat Mahkamah Rayuan, tiga hakim sekali duduk bersidang. Pasti sekurang-kurangnya dua dari mereka ni adalah di antara, Lamin Yunus (Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan - salah seorang hakim paling junior di antara hakim-hakim Mahkamah Rayuan), Mokhtar Sidin (kes rasuah dan salah lakunya sudah tersohor), G. Sri Ram (dipercayai sebagai jurutulis utama kesemua penghakiman yang dibuat oleh badut-badut ini - sebagai bekas peguam, selain Low Hop Bing dan R.K.Nathan, dialah satu-satunya yg paling bijak dan baik English nya) atau Fairuz (seperti tersebut di "surat layang" yang mengorbankan Hakim Syed Aidid dulu, seolah-olah lalang). Supaya tidak nampak "obvious", hakim ketiga selalunya hakim Mahkamah Rayuan lain ataupun seorang hakim Mahkamah tinggi. Lihatlah rayuan kes Anuar bila Lamin, Mokhtar dan Fairuz duduk sekali; hasilnya dah jadi sejarah. Selalunya tidak akan ada hakim senior dan disegani dijemput duduk bersama mereka. Lamin Yunus yang tentukan korum. Disebabkan keputusan ikut majoriti, tentulah keputusan boleh diduga dari awal. Di Mahkamah Persekutuan juga, sekurang-kurangnya tiga hakim bersidang sekali. Sekurang-kurangnya dua dari mereka ini adalah di antara Eusof Chin, Wan Adnan atau G. Sri Ram (hanya 1 hakim Mahkamah rayuan boleh duduk di Mahkamah Persekutuan dalan satu-satu masa). Boleh juga mereka bertiga duduk sekali. Biasanya tiada juga hakim senior dan disegani dijemput duduk bersama mereka. Eusof yang tentukan korum. Keputusannya ikut majoriti. Hasilnya, tekalah sendiri. Di mahkamah Rayuan dan mahkamah Persekutuan setiap hakim patut buat penghakiman mereka sendiri. Tapi hampir di semua kes yang melibatkan badut-badut ni, cuma satu saja penghakiman dibuat yang kononnya sebulat suara. Sebenarnya itu satu helah untuk menutup kelemahan mereka dari membuat alasan penghakiman yang ditertawakan dunia disebabkan "kearifan" mereka itu. Juga bagi membolehkan perjalanan kes mengikut skrip yang dirancang bersama. Tiada hakim senior yang disegani terlibat bagi mengelakkan beliau menulis penghakiman walaupun keputusan minoriti (dan kalah) tapi kukuh, bernas dan paling meyakinkan. "Justice is dead, long live keADILan!" -Abang Kenyalang.

To sangkancil@malaysia.net From Bala Pillai <bala@malaysia.net> Date Thu, 05 Nov 1998 07:57:14 +1100 The Brothers Patail Mohtar Abdullah was appointed Attorney -General on the 1st. of January  1994. Soon after that Mohtar had Datuk Gani Patail transferred from Sabah to K.L.Since then Gani Patail has been given accelerated promotions by Mohtar. Gani Patail was appointed by the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong as a Law Commissioner. These are  the DSAI-related  cases that his brother Justice Datuk Wahab Patail has heard: 1)DSAI's habeas corpus 2)Dr.Munawar's application to get back his personal effects from the police as well as details of his movements since his detention under the ISA. 3)Datuk Nalla's habeas corpus 4)Contempt of court against SAC Musa Hassan 5)Sukma's habeas corpus 6)Datuk Nalla's wrongful possession of  bullets! :-) Datuk Gani Patail is the chief prosecutor of all these cases. This is confirmed by the Attorney-General's Chambers and Bukit Aman. Even though the AG has appointed other prosecutors for some of these cases e.g. Datuk Nalla's by Zulkifli Bakar, Sukma's habeas corpus before Wahab by Dato Ahmad Maarof., Yusoff for Dr. Munawar's movements's application, it is a fact they  are all under Datuk Gani Patail's  supervision. There is a clear conflict of interest in all these cases as they are brothers. There is no semblance of the independence of the judiciary as the AG has personally appointed Wahab to hear these cases. In actual fact AG Mohtar is in charge of the judiciary. Since the AG has the power to initiate the corruption proceedings against him,Eusoff Chin will do whatever Mohtar orders. You may recall that the AG and the Patail brothers are old friends from Sabah days. Wahab Patail has legal qualifications but HAS NEVER PRACTISED LAW. He was appointed a Judicial Commissioner on the strength of a hand-written letter of recommendation by AG Mohtar to Tun Hamid Omar (the former Lord President). Wahab's appointment as a judge can be questioned as under the constitution a person can only be appointed as a judge if he practises law for 10 years. Wahab's only practical experience with the law is as a company secretary for Datuk Harris Salleh!!! The AG also directed the Lord President to transfer Augustine Paul from Malacca to hear DSAI's case. Paul served two years under Mohtar in the AG's chambers before he was made Special Commissioner of  Income Tax. During Paul's elevation  to judge the AG Mohtar advised judges to mind their conduct inpublic. Among other things he advised them not to hear cases handled by their relatives. Please refer to the headlined story of  The Sunday Star August 30th 1998. He seems to have neglected to mention that this advice does not apply to the Patail brothers. No wonder Wahab Patail thinks to suggest a conspiracy is scandalous and akin to saying a space ship has landed on Dataran Merdeka. MALAYSIA BOLEH!!! It would not be a  surprise if we were to discover one day that Gani Patail had taken a leaf out of Eusoff Chin's book and drafted the written judgements for his brother. In addition  this Muslim's knowledge of the Quran is pathetic. In dismissing DSAI's request that he allow the case to be heard by another judge because his sibling was the prosecutor he is reported to have said that he was not "his brother's keeper". Any Christian or Muslim would tell you that is what Cain said to Adam when asked about Abel's whereabouts. Cain had just murdered Abel!!!Or perhaps it was a Freudian slip. That's why Mohtar trusts no-one else but his friends Wahab Patail and Augustine Paul to hear DSAI's cases. This is the only way Mohtar can achieve the PM's desired objective of having DSAI convicted. Why else would a Law Commissioner suddenly be assigned to prosecute DSAI'S cases? Can we deny DSAI's allegation that there is a conspiracy at the highest level? One last point of interest,the Patail brothers are children of an Indian-Muslim father and a Chinese mother. The major reason why Agustine Paul wanted to hear the DSAI case in English is because Gani finds it difficult to argue the case in  Bahasa Malaysia. Inspite of the Chief Justice's ill-mannered reminder to Augustine Paul the case will be heard substantially in English  to accommodate the chief prosecutor and judge rather than foreign observers.