Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Posted: 22 Aug 2013 05:34 PM PDT

As I said, yet again, the law is an ass. And if you know your way around the law then you can literally, and figure of speech wise, get away with murder. Al Capone did in spite of the whole world knowing that he had committed numerous murders. Finally, the US government had to put him away on tax evasion charges.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

As I said exactly one month ago on 23rd July 2013, the law is an ass (READ THE ARTICLE HERE).

So, is this going to be yet another 'I told you so' article? I was no doubt referring to Anwar Ibrahim's two sodomy trials in that article, both crimes that he was eventually acquitted for -- the first during the appeal and the second during the trial proper. Nevertheless, in the first acquittal, the court said that it believed that Anwar was guilty as charged but then the prosecution had failed to prove his guilt.

Hence it is not about whether you did or did not commit the crime. It is whether the prosecution succeeded in proving your guilt. And if the prosecution did not, then the trial judge should have acquitted you. And if the trial judge had 'misdirected' himself or herself, then it is up to the appeal court or the federal court to acquit you.

Such is the law, whether you wish to regard it as an ass or not. And if you know the law you can literally, as well as figure of speech wise, get away with murder.

I am no lawyer but I know enough about how the system works to 'play around' with the law. And that was what I did when the police brought me in for interrogation regarding the article 'Let's send the Altantuya murderers to hell' that I was alleged to have written five years ago. (READ THE ARTICLE HERE).

The police officer asked me whether I had written that article. I, in turn, asked the police officer where he had found that article. He then replied he had found it on Malaysia Today.

I then asked the police officer who is it that owns Malaysia Today and he replied that I own Malaysia Today. I further asked the police officer whose name is on that article and he replied that my name is on the article.

Yes, instead of him interrogating me, I interrogated him.

I then said that if I own Malaysia Today and if my name is on that article why is he asking me such a silly question? Clearly it shows that I wrote that article so why the need to ask me whether I had written the article?

The police officer replied that he would need me to confirm this, to which I replied that I will not (even though we both may know that I had written the article) and I challenged him to prove that I had written the article.

The police then raided my house and confiscated my computer. They were looking for the evidence to prove that I had written the article. They then arrested me and charged me for sedition and put me on trial.

But the computer they confiscated did not contain the evidence and the prosecution told the trial judge this. They then requested for a recess so that they could do a second forensic test on my computer to look for the evidence that they did not find the first time.

They also could not find the evidence the second time around but they still insisted on proceeding with the trial.

The issue here is I may have written that article since my name is on the article and the article is published on a website that I own. But they do not have the evidence to prove it and I refuse to confess that I had written the article.

The question of whether I did or did not commit the crime is of no consequence. It is whether you can prove it. And in my case they could not. My name is on that article. The article is on my website. But how do you prove that I wrote the article?

Now, in a criminal indictment, the accused is innocent unless and until proven guilty. And in a case involving the death sentence, in the event there is even just 1% doubt, then the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused. The accused does not need to prove his or her innocence. He or she only needs to raise a doubt. And if any doubt is raised then the court has to acquit the accused.

And in the case of Sirul and Azilah, a doubt has been raised. In fact, they raised about 10 issues in all. But the most crucial one of all is the involvement, or otherwise, of Musa Safri, the then DPM's ADC.

Was he or was he not involved in Altantuya's murder? And why was he not called to testify as to his role, if any, in the murder? And if he had testified would the entire trial have gone in another direction?

There does not seem to be a clear motive for Sirul and Azilah to murder Altantuya and in a murder trial the motive must be clearly established. Were they hired assassins who were paid to murder Altantuya? Were they ordered by their superiors to murder Altantuya? And if so who paid them or ordered them to murder Altantuya?

In short, there were just so many gaps in the investigation and the subsequent trial. And unless and until these gaps are filled then there would be a doubt as to whether they did murder Altantuya and, if they did, what was the reason they did so?

Was this just sloppy police work or was it intentionally done to allow the appeal court a loophole later? Your guess is as good as mine. Nevertheless, this sloppiness (or intentional sloppiness) allowed a 'crack' in the prosecution's case for Sirul and Azilah to squeeze through. And squeeze through the crack they did.

The job of the appeal court is not to try the accused. The trial is over and the trial judge has already found them guilty. The job of the appeal court is to consider whether the trial judge had erred and had overlooked certain crucial points in the case.

And the appeal court is of the opinion that the trial judge has, in fact, erred and has, in fact, overlooked certain crucial points during the course of the trial. In short, some doubts exist and since there are doubts, and even though they may only be doubts and have not been proven, then the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused.

Maybe this is finally what Sirul and Azilah will be charged for: tax evasion on the RM100,000 they claim to have received (without revealing from whom) and not declaring it to the Income Tax Department.

Anyway, don't get too upset about this matter. Remember that Anwar Ibrahim and many other opposition leaders also escaped using these same laws. And I, too, escaped on the same basis.

I was detained under the Internal Security Act in 2008 because I was said to be a threat to national security. However, this detention without trial law applies to 'a body of persons' that are a threat to national security. I, however, am 'one person', not 'a body of persons'. On that ground the court declared my detention illegal and freed me.

It was a mistake that the Minister made. If he had said that I belong to a group (say like Reformasi, or Bersih, or SABM, or ABU, etc.) then my detention would have been legal. But because I am just one man, then my detention is illegal.

Isn't the law interesting? I think I will be a lawyer when I grow up.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Jumaat, 23 Ogos 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan