Anwar Ibrahim |
- Something Rotten At The Duta Courts
- ‘Larangan Polis Tak Sah, Langgar Perlembagaan’
- Bar Council Says ‘Shocked’ With Sex Video Screening In Court
- Disgraceful Attack On Anwar Ibrahim By Police & A-G’s Chambers In Datuk T Case
- KEADILAN Terbit Dokumentari Dedah Tembelang Datuk T
- Kesudahan Kes Video Yang Menepati Jangkaan
- Refusal To Probe Bala Over Altantuya: Who is The Govt Trying To Protect
| Something Rotten At The Duta Courts Posted: 25 Jun 2011 07:15 AM PDT From Malaysiakini Shakespeare wrote in the play ‘Hamlet’ that “something is rotten in the state of Denmark”. Court of Appeal judge NH Chan had also made similar remarks when he wrote the Ayer Molek Rubber Co Bhd vs Insas Bhd judgment in 1995, where he described the case he was presiding over as being about an injustice perpetrated by a court of law. Can yesterday’s conviction of the infamous ‘Datuk T’ trio be said a travesty of justice deserving the local version that goes “something is rotten in Duta courts” resulting in possibly another charge looming over Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim? Anwar had yesterday maintained the government’s conspiracy in the matter, asking how can one respect a government when its instruments are so blatantly used politically. Let’s back-track a bit before returning to the conviction. The video was screened on March 21 at the posh and historical Carcosa Seri Negara Hotel by the Datuk T for several invited editors and journalists in a room booked under the name of former Malacca chief minister Abdul Rahim Thamby Chik, who is also Risda chairperson. Rahim is part of the Datuk T trio that also comprised businessperson Shazryl Eskay Abdullah and former MP Shuib Lazim – all three later claimed responsibility for the event. The three protagonists had called on Anwar to resign. This led to Anwar issuing a statement on the same day, March 21, denying that he was the man in the video and lodged a police report the next day. As a result, the trio was called in and it was during this time Eskay said he had handed the only copy of the sex tape to the police. However, parts of the clip made their way online just before the Sarawak state elections, only to resurface last month, this time in full. It also made its way to the homes of village headmen and politicians via post. After a period of silence, Eskay took a religious oath at a Sentul mosque – complete with bullet-proof vest – to swear that Anwar was the man in the video. Subsequently the trio pleaded guilty to be fined a total of RM5,500. Discrepancy before yesterday When Eskay told reporters on Wednesday that he would be charged on Friday, several parliament reporters claimed that they spotted Rahim apparently meeting Prime Minister Najib Razak in the august House. While Najib denied the meeting took place, Anwar maintains it did indeed happen, suggesting that it would probably lead to the charge being reduced, thus adding muscle to his assertion of a political conspiracy. The trio – Eskay, Rahim and Shuib – were the main actors along with DPPs Kamaludin Md Said and Mohd Hanafiah Zakaria and respected lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah as well as two other defence lawyers. Another bombshell dropped before the Datuk T trio were charged was when Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia published a story yesterday quoting Eskay as saying he was ready for any outcome with the article aptly titled ‘Kami sedia apa saja hukuman’ (We are prepared to face any punishment). So Utusan had a scoop, probably because they knew the high possibility of all three preparing to plead guilty. The same report stated that the trio would be charged under Section 5 of the Film Censorship Act, for circulating, exhibiting, distributing and displaying an obscene film, which is punishable by a fine of not less than RM10,000 and not more than RM50,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or both. Utusan however got that charge wrong when prosecution filed a lesser charge against Datuk T. Anwar pounced on this to back his political conspiracy accusation. Proceedings in court Before the arrival of the accused, reporters somehow knew in advance that the case would be heard at magistrate’s court three and rushed up there. Normally, a case would have to be registered first, only then will the courtroom be known. That is the normal procedure any lawyer will tell you to ensure that there is no fixing of judge or magistrate. It could not be determined if the case had been registered first when the counter opened at 8am and that Eskay and co were told to arrive at that time, but they instead presented themselves sometime around 9.15am in court. According to reporters covering the trial, two widescreen televisions were already placed in court as a possible prelude to the video being screened. Some lawyers who were not watching the case but were in the massive court complex were heard murmuring that the protests outside the court in support of Datuk T and the charging were merely a sideshow – a show which has entranced and held the whole nation captive as the three-and-a-half hour proceedings rolled on. Another point of oddity was when the charge was read out under section 292 of the Penal Code, all three had asked for a break to consult their counsel, as this was “a new charge”. When the case was recalled, they pleaded guilty and suprisingly, the facts of case had already been conveniently prepared. The normal proceedings in such cases in a magistrate’s court is that when a person pleads guilty, the prosecutors would seek more time – usually a few hours or in the afternoon and sometimes the next day to prepare the statement. However, in this case, after a 45-minute interval, the charge was read again and all three entered their plea with the statement of facts ready to be read out in court. The five-page fact sheet appeared to have been carefully crafted to implicate Anwar in the video as his name was mentioned at least five times right from the first paragraph. Then came the real jolt when Shafee and not the prosecution told the magistrate that according to case laws, many such cases had been thrown out on appeal because the obscene material had not been screened. He then applied for the 20-minute sex-clip to be shown in court. The prosecution and other defence counsel raised no objections. The tape then appeared on the two big screens, which had been been placed there earlier. Then Shafee began his lengthy submission in mitigation, representing the third defendant, Rahim. He stated that the revelation of video was made in the defence of the public good and his client’s role was merely booking the hotel room. The other two counsel then delivered their submissions. Merely coincidences or conspiracy Putting together all the incidents, what is a sane person to assume – that they were merely coincidences or a meticulously crafted consipiracy as claimed by Anwar? This despite the foreign expert findings that the person performing the sex act resembled the opposition leader. The tape was shot before the crucial Sarawak election and the other point is that Anwar, who is facing an ongoing sodomy trial at that time, had successful block the admission of three crucial evidence retrieved in the police lock-up – the toothbrush, the mineral water bottle and white towel. The other point not mentioned earlier is that Eskay himself was embroiled in a legal battle involving a RM20 million suit he filed against Merong Mahawangsa Sdn Bhd and one of its directors, over the construction of the Johor Baru crooked bridge. The High Court ruled against him. It is strange that the sex tape investigations took three months as according to a retired senior police officer, in such cases the person caught would be charged within a week. The clip was also widely distributed after Eskay had handed what he claimed as the only copy to the police. Were hidden hands at work when what was reportedly a charge under the Film Censorship Act as was highlighted in Utusan was reduced to a lesser offence under the Penal Code? Is it a coincidence that big screen televisions were placed in court before the start of proceedings and the facts of case conveniently prepared. As the facts present themselves, the readers can decide whether something rotten really happened at the Duta Court yesterday. This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| ‘Larangan Polis Tak Sah, Langgar Perlembagaan’ Posted: 24 Jun 2011 10:39 PM PDT Dari Malaysiakini Pakar perlembagaan Abdul Aziz Bari berpendapat tindakan pihak polis malarang perhimpunan BERSIH pada 9 Julai depan bukan sahaya tidak sah, malah melanggar perlembagaan. “Mereka bertindak secara tidak sah apabila secara umum memaklumkan tidak akan mengeluarkan permit. “Sebagai pihak berkuasa awam, mereka hanya boleh membuat keputusan apabila permohonan dibuat,” kata pensyarah Universiti Islam Antarabangsa itu kepada Malaysiakini. Abdul Aziz (kanan) menjelaskan, bawah perlembagaan, polis perlu menimbangkan setiap permohonan permit dan tidak patut membuat sebarang pertimbangan tidak wajar. Beliau berhujah, polis membuat penghakiman awal berhubung perkara itu dan sekali gus menentang undang-undang. Paling teruk apabila ia bertentangan dengan hak yang dijamin dalam perlembagaan. Katanya, mengikut Perkara 10(1)(b) Perlembagaan Perskutuan, polis tiada sebarang hak melarang perhimpunan aman yang dijamin. “Hatta mahkamah juga tidak boleh melakukannya,” kata pensyarah undang-undang itu. |
| Bar Council Says ‘Shocked’ With Sex Video Screening In Court Posted: 24 Jun 2011 09:42 PM PDT The magistrate's court should not have screened the sex video allegedly featuring Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim yesterday because the "Datuk T" trio had already pleaded guilty to the crime, says the Bar Council. Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee described that the court's decision in allowing the video to be shown as "shocking" and "extraordinary." He stressed that there was no reason to do since those accused of screening the video had readily admitted to the crime. "There is no need to because they have already pleaded guilty; I am surprised why the sex video was shown in court. "This is an extraordinary procedure, I am shocked as to why it happened… if a person has already pleaded guilty there is no need to (reveal the evidence)," Lim told The Malaysian Insider. The lawyer said the court's action was inconsistent with standard procedures in such cases, where evidence is only revealed during the course of a full trial and when the accused maintains his or her innocence. Former Malacca Chief Minister Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Thamby Chik, businessman Datuk Shazryl Eskay Abdullah and former Perkasa treasurer-general Datuk Shuib Lazim, all of whom make up the "Datuk T" trio, were fined yesterday for their involvement in the screening of the sex video at Carcosa Seri Negara Hotel here on March 21. Abdul Rahim was hit with a RM1,000 fine for abetting Shazryl and Shuib, who were fined RM3,000 and RM1,500 respectively. Elaborating further, Lim said the punishment meted out was relevant to the offence committed by the three. "I have no problem with the punishment, it is just the sex video screening which is an issue," he added. |
| Disgraceful Attack On Anwar Ibrahim By Police & A-G’s Chambers In Datuk T Case Posted: 24 Jun 2011 08:02 PM PDT PRESS RELEASE After an unexplained delay of 3 months, the notorious ‘Datuk T’ trio were charged and convicted on June 24 for exhibiting an obscene film in public under s.292(a) of the Penal Code. As expected, the trio were let off with ‘a slap on the wrist’. However what is truly shocking is the conduct of the prosecution in court today. The prosecution submitted a statement of facts which alleged that the video recording is authentic and that an expert in the United States had found that the person in the video resembled Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim. Clearly, the authenticity of the video and the alleged identity of the person in it is completely irrelevant to the offence of exhibiting an obscene recording in public. It is highly unusual and against accepted procedure in criminal prosecutions to insert such irrelevant matters into the statement of facts. In short, the representative of the Attorney General went out of his way to smear the reputation of Anwar Ibrahim. Not being a party to the proceedings, Anwar had no opportunity to defend himself. What happened in court on June 24 was disgraceful and sickening; it is a basic rule of our legal system that court proceedings must never be used to abuse and slander absent third parties. The events in court on June 24 is clear proof of the involvement of the highest authorities, including the police leadership and the A-G’s Chambers, in the conspiracy to defame and destroy Anwar Ibrahim politically and personally. Their pretence of impartiality and independence is laughable, and widely disbelieved by the Rakyat. It is also very disturbing that the courts have allowed the authorities to misuse court process for unlawful and unjust purposes. N SURENDRAN 25 June |
| KEADILAN Terbit Dokumentari Dedah Tembelang Datuk T Posted: 24 Jun 2011 07:42 PM PDT
Dari KeadilanDaily KEADILAN menerbitkan video dokumentari bagi membuktikan keraguan video seks yang dikaitkan dengan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Ia bertujuan menangkis usaha jahat Umno-BN menerusi trio Datuk T, sekaligus mengesahkan lelaki dalam video seks berkenaan bukan Anwar. Dokumentari itu menampilkan Ahli Parlimen Sungai Petani, Datuk Johari Abdul sebagai pengulas dengan memaparkan analisa video seks berkenaan. Perkara itu diumumkan Johari dalam sidang media di Ibu Pejabat KEADILAN sebentar tadi. Dokumentari itu sebagai respon kepada laporan pakar lantikan polis di Amerika Syarikat yang mendakwa lelaki dalam video seks yang ditayangkan Datuk T,adalah Anwar. Video berdurasi selama 37 minit itu mendedahkan pelbagai persoalan- antaranya bayang-bayang yang muncul dari dalam bilik ketika aksi seks itu dirakamkan dan penggunaan remote control oleh pelaku. Dokumentari itu juga mendedahkan bahawa rakaman video seks itu sengaja dihitam putihkan supaya wajah pelaku terbabit, kelihatan samar, selain pelbagai kelemahan antaranya bentuk tubuh pelaku yang lebih besar, berperut boroi dan berhidung mancung. Dalam dokumentari itu juga Johari menimbulkan persoalan mengapa lelaki X memakai cermin mata di awal rakaman, sedangkan Anwar sudah lama tidak memakai cermin mata selepas menjalani pembedahan mata. Johari merupakan satu-satunya Ahli Parlimen KEADILAN yang ditunjukkan rakaman berkenaan oleh Trio Datuk T yang terdiri daripada Tan Sri Rahim Tamby Chik, Datuk Shazryl Eskay Abdullah dan Datuk Shuaib Lazim pada Mac lalu. Menjadi P Ramlee
Beginilah wajah Johari Abdul apabila disolek menjadi P Ramlee. Untuk mengesahkan dakwaannya, Johari dalam dokumentari itu 'mencuba' menukar dirinya untuk menjadi P Ramlee dengan menggunakan khidmat jurusolek di Bangkok, Thailand. Meskipun mengakui raut wajah antara mereka sangat berbeza, namun juru solek berkenaan berjaya mengubah wajahnya, mirip kepada seniman agung itu. "Transformasi ini dibuat tanpa juru solek menggunakan silkon yang akan menambah lagi keserupaan saya dengan Allahyarham P. Ramlee," ujarnya dalam dokumentari itu. Selain menimbulkan pelbagai kepincangan, Johari dalam dokumentari itu juga mendedahkan sebab dan punca mengapa trio Datuk T bertindak menayangkan video seks mengaitkan Anwar. Antaranya disebabkan dendam Eskay, malah menurut JOhari, Eskay sendiri memberitahunya bahawa akan menjatuhkan Anwar dalam apa cara sekali pun. Pada babak lain, dokumentari yang dihasilkan Johari mendedahkan pengakuan Mohd Mahte Abdul Rahim, pegawai polis dan bekas pengawal peribadi Allahyarham Tan Sri Megat Junid. Mahte memberikan petunjuk awal bahawa video itu dirakam di Thailand dan kaitan konspirasi yang disusun Eskay berikutan keengganan Anwar untuk membantunya dalam kes saman jambatan bengkok. |
| Kesudahan Kes Video Yang Menepati Jangkaan Posted: 24 Jun 2011 07:33 PM PDT Dari Merdeka Review Ketua Pembangkang Parlimen, Anwar Ibrahim mendakwa bahawa keputusan pertuduhan “Datuk T” lantaran penayangan satu klip video seks yang mengheret nama dirinya itu “sudah dijangka”. Malah, Anwar berkata, “Saya tak terkesan sama sekali. Eekmal (pembantunya) lebih terkesan, dia yang beritahu saya apa yang berlaku secara terperinci. Dan saya jangka…” Beliau meneruskan, “Siapa yang tidak tahu sistem yang ada sekarang? Dan tentunya media UMNO akan menyerang, cuba nak hidupkan balik kes yang sudah mati…” Ketika diminta untuk mengulas isu ini, Anwar berkata, “Saya jangka, sebab tu semalam saya sebut, ini hanya satu wayang kerana yang mendakwa ialah Gani Patail. Rundingan Rahim dan Dato Seri Najib sudah berlaku mengambil masa lebih dari tiga bulan, (untuk) kes yang semudah ini. Jadi, sewajarnya rakyat tahu, apa permainan mereka. Dan tentunya digunakan medan mahkamah ini sekadar untuk melemparkan fitnah.” Beliau mempersoalkan, “Hal-hal yang melibatkan yang nyata, bukti, mengenai pembunuhan, rogol, penyeksaan, itu semua ditutup. Yang digembar-gemburkan ialah fitnah, walaupun saya sudah menafikan sekeras-kerasnya, itu yang menyebabkan saya terdorong untuk buat laporan polis. Walaupun saya tahu, keterbatasan sistem ini, tetapi kalau kita tak buat laporan polis, mereka akan berkata ‘maknanya sudah bersalah’. Anwar (gambar kanan) diminta wartawan untuk mengulas isu ini, selepas berucap dalam seminar bertajuk “Social Market Economy; an Alternative for Malaysia?” anjuran Kajian Dasar & Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, di Quality Hotel, Shah Alam, tadi. Datuk T didenda Bekas Ketua Menteri Melaka Rahim Thamby Chik, ahli perniagaan Shazryl Eskay Abdullah dan bekas bendahari PERKASA Shuib Lazim pada hari ini didakwa mengikut Seksyen 292(a) Kanun Keseksaan yang dibaca bersama Seksyen 34, atas kesalahan menayangkan video lucah di bilik Seri Makmur Hotel Carcosa Seri Negara di Kuala Lumpur antara jam 10 pagi dan 12 tengah hari, pada 21 Mac 2011. Ketiga-tiga mereka mengaku bersalah, dan Mahkamah Majistret Kuala Lumpur telah menjatuhkan hukuman seperti berikut, Eskay (kanan) didenda RM3,000, Shuib (kiri) RM1,500 dan Rahim (tengah) sebanyak RM1,000. Bagaimanapun, perbicaraan kes ini tidak berhenti di situ. Peguambela Rahim iaitu Muhammad Shafee Abdullah mendakwa bahawa pelaku dalam video seks adalah “99.99% mirip rupa Anwar”, memetik laporan pakar dari Amerika Syarikat, menurutnya. Malah, video seks tersebut ditayangkan di dalam mahkamah, cuma dicepatkan (fast-forward) apabila wujud aksi seks. Meskipun tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan mahkamah, Rahim mendakwa misi mereka telah disempurnakan kerana telah mendedahkan “kemaksiatan Anwar”. Bagaimanapun, Ketua Parlimen DAP, Lim Kit Siang menyelar bahawa prosedur mahkamah telah disalahgunakan, dan menuntut penjelasan polis dan Peguam Negara mengapa kes ini ditangguhkan sehingga tiga bulan? Malah, Lim Kit Siang mengkritik kenyataan memetik laporan pakar bahawa pelaku video seks 99.99% mirip Anwar, kerana laporan tersebut tidak dibuka untuk dicabar. |
| Refusal To Probe Bala Over Altantuya: Who is The Govt Trying To Protect Posted: 24 Jun 2011 07:21 PM PDT From Malaysia Chronicle The de-facto Law Minister Nazri Aziz, in a written reply to Parliament, has stated that there was 'no case' in the investigations into the authenticity of P Balasubramaniam’s two statutory declarations in regards to the Altantuya murder. Thus, the Attorney-General has decided not to investigate further, effectively closing the case into the private investigator’s declarations. Nazri also mentioned that the AG decided not to pursue the case as the two conflicting SDs would have “no effect” on the Altantuya Shaaribuu murder trial. This has further dumb-founded lawmakers as the basis for dropping the case does seem flimsy and illogical. Nazri’s rationale For Bala to be charged, it must be proven that the contents of his SD are not only false but also legally admissible as testimony in a court of law, Nazri added. “However, the statutory declarations made by P Balasubramaniam were not intended to be used as testimony in any proceedings,” he said. Nazri also quoted and made references to Section 199 of the Penal Code. Section 199 of the Penal Code reads: "Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any court, or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence." Nazri and the government's statements are baffling. Bala's statutory declarations were clearly made in the context of the Altantuya murder trial. So how can there be no effect? Bala was the private investigator employed by Razak Baginda to protect him and his family from Altantuya, who at the time of employment was in Kuala Lumpur to demand her commission for assisting Razak Baginda in the purchase of the Scorpene submarines. Bala's testimonies are central to understanding the case since he had access to all involved in the murder case. For the AG to say that Bala's statutory declaration has "no effect" on the Altantuya murder case is illogical. Also, if the declarations did not have an effect, than why did the AG bother to have Bala investigated for making a false statement in the first place? Covering up the sins of a leader Nazri's contention the declarations were never intended to be used as testimony in any proceedings is also not true. After making his first statutory declaration, Bala was hauled up and coerced into making a second statutory declaration, retracting the first. In London last year, he stated very clearly that it is the first SD which is the true one, not the second. If the statutory declarations pose no threat or were of no use in any proceedings, then why the rough treatment from the authorities towards Bala and his family. They were told to leave the country immediately and Bala later on even pin-pointed Najib’s brother Nazim as among those who arranged his departure from Malaysia. Why the retraction of the first SD and the obvious dropping of references to Najib Razak and Rosmah Mansor in the second? Nazri and the AG should be reminded that any statutory declaration made by any individual has to be proven true or false and it is evidence in a court of law against or for the individual, or else we will be making statutory declarations with impunity. And the biggest question of it all is – is the Bala statutory declaration true or false? Bala has said it is the first one that is true. Why has this matter never been answered by the AG or Nazri? The case is closed but the authenticity of the two statutory declarations is still anyone's guess as far as the government is concerned. And in the absence of a firm denial, we can all surmise that they were either true or hold enough truth to have the AG sweep them under the rug. This whole affair by Nazri and the AG smells of a massive cover-up of vital information in the Altantuya murder case. Further investigation could flush out links to the exobitantly priced Scorpenes purchase, for which Najib has been accused of taking kickbacks. Sad to day, but it certainly looks like the truth has been sacrificed in order to cover-up the sins of a leader desperately trying to hold onto power. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Anwar Ibrahim To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Tiada ulasan:
Catat Ulasan