 |
|
Malaysia's judiciary is constantly in the world news, with almost an innovation-a-day. The common law, used throughout the Commonwealth, is based heavily on precedent. There is thus wide interest with an increasing sense of wonder at the events occurring in the courtrooms of Malaysia today. Here is a sample:
On December 3, 1992 Anwar Ibrahim allegedly committed sodomy with a man in a room of the PJ Hilton hotel. The charges, brought by the government prosecutors, are reported in a recent (July 4, 2000) news item. This report is interesting because the allegation does not appear in the ongoing sodomy trial of Anwar Ibrahim.
On February 8, 1999 the alledged sodomee prepared a statutory declaration denying that any such incident never occurred, and essentially that the charges were knowingly fabrications by the prosecution. The courage of the accused in defending himself is noteworthy.
On April 23, 1999 the Attorney-General brought new charges against the alleged sodomee, saying that his statutory declaration contained a "false statement." The new charges gave mention of a second suit the accused has brought against the government. The details of this suit were not given. The new charges thus appear to be an attempt by the government to intimidate and further harass the defendant for refusing to lend credence to the charges in the Anwar Ibrahim case.
On July 3, 2000 the defendant was discharged by the Sessions Court, the honorable Judge Akhtar Tahir presiding, on a motion by the defendant's attorney, Jerald Gomez. Judge Akhtar Tahir denied a request for extension made by the Deputy Public Prosecutor, whose plea for more time to prepare the case was rejected on the grounds, "This case has gone on too long."
Testimony in the Anwar Ibrahim trial describes offers made by the government or their representatives as inducements for witnesses to give false testimony that Anwar had either sodomized them or solicited them for sodomy. Anwar Ibrahim in his defence stated that a conspiracy existed in the government to destroy his political career by the means of malicious prosecution.
In the instant case a man has made a statement that is equivalent to entering a plea of not guilty. But the response of the government is not to try him on the original incident, but to bring charges against the plea of not guilty. This is tantamount to a charge of perjury in entering the plea of not guilty.
Every man has the right to deny charges brought against him by the government, whether before the bench or by statutory declaration. The use of a statement denying charges as a cause to originate new charges is a novelty worthy of legal review.
Several points are noteworthy. If the government prosecutors have knowingly brought false charges against an innocent man, for whatever motive, then the prosecutors have themselves committed a crime. The motive in this case appears to be an intent to participate further in an ongoing conspiracy to convict and discredit Anwar Ibrahim. In furtherance of this aim another innocent man is attacked and his reputation sacrificed. He is threatened with penal servitude and beating with the rotan.
The presiding judge, the truly honorable Judge Akhtar Tahir, has made a ruling which interferes with the government plan, in a time when the executive is seen to exert nefarious retributions against independent judges. This act contributes to the reconstruction of the Malaysian judiciary.
Not only Malaysians, but all mankind recognizes a debt of gratitude to Judge Akhtar Tahir. In cases such as this one, where important rights are being protected, the judge gives service that reaches far beyond his career on the bench.
It is eternal. May the Honorable Judge Akhtar Tahir serve long. He has earned a place beside the heroes of our history. He knows that. We all do. It is important we tell him so.