Pahang govt in contempt of Federal Court Ruling!

Are the Courts now useless and powerless to enforce the law? The Pahang govt is spitting in the face of the Federal Court Judgement and there is nothing the Courts can do about it??

PETALING JAYA: The 55-year-old retiree who threatened to commit suicide by fire has called off his plans following pleas by his friends and family who feared for his life.

Gan Ee Seng, who had announced his decision to self-immolate in protest over the Pahang state government’s refusal to honour a over RM70-million court ordered compensation to a company he invested in, said he may pay the state’s Menteri Besar Adnan Yaakob a visit at his home instead.

“Actually I felt that I want to burn myself today but I won’t. I was warned and advised by police and friends not to do so and… I have agreed,” Gan told reporters at the clearing in Padang Kota, Kota Damansara.

A number of plainclothes police were seen monitoring the situation this morning.

Gan, who had heart problems and diabetes, had begun his hunger strike on Monday and was hospitalised yesterday after he collapsed at the tent he was camping at. Today, he said he would not continue his hunger strike as well.

It was learnt that Gan’s wife and children, had wept and pleaded with him last night to change his mind about killing himself. They had known about the hunger strike but only read about the suicide plan in the papers yesterday.

“My family, my wife, she said they want to come to stop me, but I told her better don’t come. I told them not to worry, I just don’t want her to see me like this,” he said.

Gan said he owed many friends and family money because of this case and has been depressed for some time.

Gan said he called off his plan also because he was reminded not only that an attempted suicide was an offence, but his actions may affect others.

“I may continue my campaign in Kuantan, I may go to the front of his (MB’s) house, maybe burn myself there, I don’t know yet,” he said.

“I just want Pahang people to know, Malaysians to know, that the MB is no different from a pirate.

“If someone comes into your house in the morning and takes your possessions, will you keep quiet? Is it because your fists are larger that you can bully us?” said an weary but emotional Gan.

‘Will stop if BN loses’

Gan said if Pahang government can be so lawless, what was stopping other states from being so. “Which investor would want to come to such country?”

Gan said he may stop all campaigns when the BN government loses in the next general election.

Meanwhile, Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd former director Lee Sin said the group had calmed Gan down last night at the hospital.

“We already calmed him in hospital, we were so afraid and worried for him. He later only really realised that this is not the correct way,” said Lee.

Kuantan-based Seruan Gemilang had in 2002 sued the state for breaching a logging contract in which Seruan Gemilang claimed it was issued a permit to clear 8,000 acres of forest in Pekan, said to be owned by Pahang Umno.

In 2007, the Kuantan High Court awarded RM37,127,471.60 in damages with 8% interest per annum backdated to Dec 31, 2000. In total, the amount due to the company is now over RM70 million.

The award was retained as the Federal Court denied the state government’s application for leave to appeal against the May 2007 decision.

Since then, Seruan Gemilang had repeatedly attempted in vain to compel the state to pay up, including resorting to holding demonstrations, appealing to Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and even holding a hunger strike relay last year.

What is fair?

Anwar, 64, was charged on Aug 8, 2008 under Section 377B of the Penal Code with committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature. (NOTE: This charge is with consent of the "victim" not force rape)

He was accused and acquitted by the High Court of sodomising Mohd Saiful

Is it fair that Saiful, a 20+ man that is 6feet tall get an appeal at the cost of the the reputation and funds of the Malaysian Government, just so that he can defend his dignity?

WELL HE GOT HIS APPEAL!

How about Abdul Razak Baginda? A close friend of Najib who was charge and also acquitted with the murder (blowing up with military gred C4 explosive) of Altantuya Shaariibuu, a pregnant Mongolian women!

Did her family see justice and get an appeal?

NO WAY!

Deputy public prosecutor Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah, who is leading the prosecution, said in a statement today that there would be no appeal because the trial judge had made a finding of fact in acquitting Abdul Razak.

Anwar's acquittal was also on point of fact! So why is there an appeal!

The answer is here!

Another injustice by our Courts!

Dr D Jeyakumar’s bid to question the government over its annual RM1 million allocation for the Sungai Siput constituency was shot down in the Court of Appeal today.

His lawyer Ambiga Sreenevasam said it is a disappointing decision as Jeyakumar was hoping that the court would serve as a check on the government in terms of transparency, as to where the money has gone.

Jeyakumar said the court - the last bastion of justice for the people - should have been supportive of the decision to ensure that the money allocated is not wasted.

"I do not want the money for myself ... but to ensure (that whatever is allocated) is properly spent ....opposition MPs do not directly get the allocation from the federal government and this is disappointing.

“Following this decision, my message to the people is that as we cannot depend on the courts to look for transparency and it is people power (that will) decide in the coming general election."

Jeyakumar said he will consult Parti Sosialis Malaysia as to whether or not to appeal this decision.

This is because the final opportunity to go to the Federal Court could be costly although the lawyers are providing their services free of charge.

Justice Low Hop Bing, sitting with Justices Abdul Wahab Patail and Anantham Kasinater, unanimously allowed the federal government’s appeal today and dismissed Jeyakumar's application.

Jeyakumar had named the director-general of the Implementation Unit of the Prime Minister's Department, the director of the Perak Development Department and the federal government as defendants.

In February Justice Aziah Ali of the Kuala Lumpur High Court hadgranted Jeyakumar leave to apply for judicial review, to challenge the government's action not to give or provide details of its annual allocation of RM1 million to his constituency.

On Sept 23, the same High Court refused the government a stay of the judicial review proceedings, leading to the appeal being filed.

Low: Judge erred in law

Justice Low, whose decision was read out by a deputy registrar, said the appellate court is of the view the High Court had erred in granting leave for judicial review.

"We allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and substitute it with an order that the Notice of Motion be dismissed," he said.

His reasoning was that the disbursement of the allocation is entrusted in the director-general and director. And this involves the exercise of discretion based on a detailed and comprehensive process of evaluation.

"The DG or director is not required to approve all and sundry applications for the allocation. The respondent (Jeyakumar) must show that there is a legal or statutory duty on the part of the DG and director as a matter of course to approve his 2010 application."

Justice Low said the respondent must establish the existence of a duty of a public nature, the performance of which is imperative and not optional or discretionary.

"The respondent has failed to do so. The notice of motion is clearly premised on the DG's and or director's discretion to approve and disburse funds. There is not an iota of law that the DG or director must do so," he said in his 21-page judgment.

Justice Low further said there can be no doubt that the approval and disbursement of fund involves the exercise of discretion.

"The DG or director must evaluate the applications for the allocation. These applications can only be decided by the DG or the director in line with policy considerations and management prerogative.

"The factual background did show that the appellants had approved (Jeyakumar’s) application amounting to RM1.72 million, while other applications are being given consideration.”

He further pointed out the Perak development department head had suggested that Jeyakumar should channel relevant applications to relevant government agencies.

He said that, in the process of evaluation, the DG or the director must ensure that disbursement of allocations is consistent with government policy.

"Our courts do not possess the knowledge of policy considerations that underlie the decisions pursuant to the DG’s or director’s evaluation.

"The issues raised in the notice of motion are issues of policy considerations and management prerogative. We find that the submission presented by the respondent is legally unsustainable.

"Therefore we are of the view that the issues raised in the notice of motion are not judicially reviewable and hence not justiciable."

The case has been watched closely by Pakatan Rakyat MPs because the federal government has been disbursing allocations to their constituencies only via BN representatives.

Jeyakumar pointed out he does not know where the allocation goes in Sungai Siput and whether the disbursements are the correct amount.

"We want to make sure that if RM5,000 is allocated for a project, (that) amount is given and the project is done properly. That is the purpose. I do not want to see someone benefitting from shortcuts or leakages," he said.

He also said that RM30 billion to RM40 billion of the RM230 billion allocated in Budget 2012 could be wasted if there is no accountability in expenditure.

The Government Transformation Programme and Economic Transformation Programme would similarly “(come) to nought if (the government) is not held accountable", he added.

The justice we come to expect in Malaysia!

SURPRISE! SURPRISE!! Premier Najib Abdul Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor will not be testifying in the Sodomy II trial as they are "not material witnesses".

This follows the Kuala Lumpur High Court's decision today to throw out the subpoenas served on them to testify as defence witnesses in Anwar Ibrahim's trial.

In allowing Najib and Rosmah"s application to be set aside, justice Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah said they are not relevant and material witnesses in the trial.

Zabidin issued the subpoenas last month but he ruled in favour of an application by the couple to strike them out, saying the defence failed to show their involvement

(even through Najib has admitted meeting Anwar's accuser Mohamad Saiful Bukhari Azlan two days before the alleged sodomy).

IS ANYONE IN MALAYSIA REALLY SURPRISE BY THIS VERDICT!!

All I can say is that this is not COOL! on Najib's part!!

Another news that is NOT SURPRISING!!!

The police have identified a police personnel who during the July 9 Bersih 2.0 rally allegedly used out excessive force on demonstrators.

Contacted yesterday, Kuala Lumpur CID chief Ku Chin Wah said that a police report was lodged against the errant officer - who was wearing a bandana across his face during the rally - but no prosecution will take place.

"The matter has been referred to the Attorney-General's Chambers and no further action could be taken against him due to the absence of witnesses," he told Malaysiakini.

I GUESS WE BETTER GET USE TO THIS LAH!

That is as long as Malaysian are stupid enough to still keep on voting for BN and still believe how efficient and good they are at running this country!

With reports that none of the 25 cases of serial acid attacks that took place in the Klang Valley this year have been solved, (Parliament was told today). How can any alternative party do any worst?

I guess we can't blame the police entirely. After all they are very busy trying to find evidence to incriminate an old man (with a bad back) with sodomizing a tall young fit guy!!

MACC Gutless Sissy!!

From Malaysiakini

The inquest into the death of Ahmad Sarbaini Mohamed which concluded yesterday with the ruling that the customs officer had accidentally fallen to his death, bore a stark resemblance to that of DAP political aide Teoh Beng Hock last year.

According to PKR vice-president N Surendran (left), the obvious similarity was in the manner in which the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), in which custody both men died, had behaved.

"It is noteworthy that the MACC behaved in a similar fashion during the investigation and inquiries into the death of (Teoh), who also died during MACC investigations on July 16, 2009.

"In both instances, the MACC participated in open attacks on the reputation of the deceased victims during the various inquiries," he said in a statement.

Surendran added that this went against the basic principle of the common law system "that court proceedings must never be used to unnecessarily defame absent parties."

During both inquests the MACC had produced evidence that both Teoh and Sarbaini were involved in graft "although (neither were) able to answer the charge or defend (themselves)."

"This was disgraceful and unimportant to the inquiry into how he met his death," he said.

Surendran's stand is consistent with that of Ahmad Sarbaini's widow, Maziah Manap,who has accused MACC lawyer Shafee Abdullah of defaming her late husband through media statements.

MACC tried to absolve itself

The PKR veep, who is also a lawyer, noted that throughout the inquest, MACC had not acted in a manner befitting its status as a key public institution.

"MACC's priority should have been to get to the truth of the matter, ensure punishment of those culpable and institute reforms to ensure public confidence and safety.

"Instead, the MACC acted like a private individual, trying to desperately clear their name by whatever means available," he said.

One of those means, he added, was to engage in "Umno-linked lawyer Shafee Abdullah (right) to 'defend' them during the inquest".

He added that the verdict of the inquest was also "unbelievable and inconsistent" as Ahmad Sarbaini had gone to the MACC Cheras office voluntarily on April 6, but is now said to have crawled out of the third floor window to leave.

"There is also no explanation as to how and why 22 hours of crucial CCTV footage was erased, which covered the period during which (Ahmad) Sarbaini died," he said.

As such, PKR is calling for a royal commission of inquiry into the death, with the scope of the RCI to include operating procedures, recruitment and training methods of the MACC and recommendations for urgent reforms.

See what really happen to Ahmad Sarbaini here

Injustice by Chief Justice for not standing up for Justice!

The Federal Court has dismissed a crucial appeal by five native customary rights landowners, a decision which will adversely affect more than 100 similar cases.

The three-member panel of judges led by outgoing Chief Justice Zaki Azmi, chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak Richad Malanjum and Federal Court Judge Md Raus Sharif made a unanimous decision to dismiss the case, brought by Bato Bagi and five others.

Bato, along with five others, are suing the state government over the loss of their lands to the Bakun dam project.

This is also Justice Zaki's last judgment. He steps down on Monday, after reaching the retirement age of 66.

Bato, whose name is now synomous with the case, was unable to hear the judgment today, as he died two months ago.

The Federal Court today (8 Sept) refused to answer a question on whether the seizure of land by the Sarawak government for the Bakun dam was unconstitutional or not.

The decision by Chief Justice Zaki Azmi (left) and the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Richard Malanjum, both of whom refused to answer the question, was to let other pending cases deal with the issue.

The other Federal Court judge, Justice Md Raus Sharif, answered the question in the negative, and said the seizure was not unconstitutional.

However, all three judges unanimously decided to dispose of lawyer Baru Bian's appeal following the land seizure in Bakun by the state government 14 years ago to build the multi-billion ringgit dam and a wood pulp mill.

The question posed before the court was “whether section 5(3) and (4) of the Sarawak Land Code relating to the extinguishment of native customary rights are ultra vires of Article 5 (right to life) and Article 13 (right to property) of the federal constitution.”

Zaki in his 15-page judgment, which was the last to be read out, said there seems to possibly be other grounds for challenging the unconstitutionality of section 5(3) and (4) of the Code.

Unfortunately, he said as pointed by Justice Malanjum these were not raised or properly canvassed before the court.

“A lengthy part of the submission was for the case to be reverted to the High Court for a full trial, which for reasons mentioned I do not find it proper to do so. I will therefore have to decide the question based on the arguments put before us.

“Based on those arguments and after having read the grounds of the other two judgments I would associate with the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak and find I do not need to answer the question,” he said, adding the court unanimously made no orders as to cost here and below.

Following this, Zaki ruled in dismissing the appeal and upholding the orders by the two courts ie the Sarawak High Court and Court of Appeal below.

The Chief Justice, noted before the start in delivering the decision that this was one of the most difficult verdicts he had to make in his three years' tenure as the top judge in the country.

Normally the Federal Court being the highest court in the land can determine on constitutional interpretation, but it chose not to due to arguments that there is not much before them to decide.

'Bring it to arbitration'

Zaki noted that while parties are not satisfied with the amount of compensation, the matter should have been brought to arbitration.

“In my opinion during that arbitration they could have raised all the issues regarding loss of their farms, burial grounds and other matters affecting their livelihood. There is no need for this case to be sent back for trial.

“To me that wold be unnecessary waste of money and time. Bato Bagi has accepted the compensation without referring it to arbitration. How could he now come before us to review the compensation or the extinguishment of the natives rights itself?,” the parting Chief justice said in his final judgment.

Justice Malanjum, in his 37-page detailed judgment, wrote he was of the view the court was not fully assisted although the question posed was staring at the parties.

“There was no discussion on whether the courts below were correct in their approaches in construing the relevant provisions of the constitution or whether they adopted the right test in considering the constitutionality of the impugned sections.”

Not mere existence

The Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak noted that the expression of life in Article 5 (1) does not refer to mere existence.

It, he said, incorporates all those facets that are an integral part of the life itself and those matters which go to form the quality of life.

“Of these are the right to seek and be engaged in lawful and gainful employment and to receive those benefits that our society has to offer to its members. It includes the right to live in a reasonably healthy and pollution free environment.

“If indeed extinguishment of their native customary rights has an adverse effect on the livelihood of the natives in the same way as dismissal has on the livelihood of a gainfully employed person... then it is only fair in my view that before any extinguishments direction is issued the holders of native customary rights should be given the opportunity to present their case,” he said.

Malanjum said this is essential justice and procedural fairness which a public decision-maker should ensure as having been meted out.

Justice Raus in holding sections 5 (3) and (4) of the Sarawak Land Code as constitutional said he was always guided by the principle that when the court is faced with the issue of constitutionality of a provision or statute, the court should be slow in striking down the impugned provision for being unconstitutional.

“The approach of the court while examining the challenge to the constitutionality of an enactment, is to start with the presumption of constitutionality. The court should try to sustain its validity to the extent possible. It should strike down the enactment only when it is not possible to sustain,” Raus cited former Federal Court judge Gopal Sri Ram.

Background of the suit

Bato Bagi, five longhouse residents of Uma Balui Ukap at Batu Kalo, Uma Lesong at Batu Keling, Uma Bakah at Long Bulan, Rumah Kulit at Long Jawe and Rumah Ukit at Long Ayak on June 23, 1997, claimed native customary rights over lands along Batang Balui and its tributaries in the Belaga District of Kapit division. Other claimants, Jalang anak Paran and Kamong Anak Amih, had their lands taken for the Borneo Pulp and Paper Sdn Bhd.

They were ordered to vacate the land and surrender their native customary rights for the construction of the dam.

The indigenous people wanted the order to be declared void on the grounds that:

• The directive violated the plaintiffs' fundamental rights under Articles 5(1) of the federal constitution, and/or Article 8 of the federal constitution and/or Art. 13(2) of the federal constitution;

• The directive was in violation of Article 39(1) and (2) of the constitution of the state of Sarawak and/or Article 153 of the federal constitution; and

• The directive was made pursuant to sections 5(3) and (4) of the Sarawak Land Code, which are void and unconstitutional as being in violation of Article 5(1) of the federal donstitution and/or Article 8 of the federal constitution and/or Article 39(1) and (2) of the constitution of the state of Sarawak and/or Article 153 of the federal constitution.

Bato has since passed away.

Disappointment at decision

Counsel for the natives Baru Bian expressed disappointment at the apex court not allowing the appeal but rejoiced that there is an opportunity for the issue to be brought up again in other cases.

“There are many similar cases affecting NCR land which had been seized by the Sarawak government without considering the livelihood of the people. This cases will be coming up and it gives us another bite to challenge the constitutionality of the land grab,” Baru (left in photo) said.

Sahabat Alam Malaysia representative Mohideen Abdul Kadeer also expressed disappointment at the court not wanting to interpret the question.

He said the case took 10 years for it to come to the Federal Court, and it missed a golden opportunity to put such matter at rest and resolve other pending NCR land cases.

“Our concern is not only the livelihood of the person affected but also the ecological impact of such projects which would affect climate change,” he said.

Before the start of the case Baru led prayers in Bahasa Malaysia for a positive ruling in court but this was not to be.

Meanwhile a law professor said Chief Justice Zaki Azmi and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Justice Richard Malanjum, could have abdicated their oath of office by their refusal to interpret the question of law posed to them.

The question posed before the court was "whether section 5(3) and (4) of the Sarawak Land Code relating to the extinguishment of native customary rights are ultra vires Article 5 (Right to life) and Article 13 (right to property) of the Federal Constitution."

Islamic International University professor Abdul Aziz Bari said by refusing to deal with the constitutionality issue, the Federal court has abdicated its duty.

"Under the Federal Constitution, the Federal Court which is the highest court of the land is essentially the constitutional court of the country; the main tribunal whose major duty is to take care of the constitution," he said.

Abdul Aziz (left) pointed out that their refusal meant that they had failed to fulfill their oath when taking office by saying "I will faithfully discharge my judicial duties in that office to the best ability, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Malaysia, and will preserve, protect and defend its constitution."

The don added that the court is the custodian of justice, so the judges have let the citizens down for the constitution is the supreme law of the land, one that protects them from arbitrariness whether in the form of laws passed by the legislature or through executive decisions.

"It is the duty of the judiciary to declare the rights of the citizens, being custodial of justice," he said

'Case cannot be good authority'

Abdul Aziz said from the law standpoint when the decision is not decided unanimously, then there is a loophole.

“Since there is only one judge who made a ruling (on the constitutional question) on it, this case cannot be a strong authority.

“In any case, one wonders why the two did not make up their mind? Is it a case of just wanting to let go this one and later the court can take a more restrictive approach?” he asked, adding that the bottom line is the same; that the land grab is now deemed legal and the citizens have lost.

The law expert said the right to property is guaranteed by the constitution under Article 13 of the supreme law of the nation.

“There seems to be a kind of politics or manoeuvring here,” observed Abdul Aziz.

Our courts are being turn into a circus BN's political gain! Shameless!!

Something rotten at the Duta courts

Jun 25, 11 6:26pm

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.

He repeated himself yesterday when the facts of the case were being read out in court, telling the court that the man in the video who resembles Anwar, was indeed the politician.

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.

Just don't make sense!

Been reading about Anwar vs Saiful Bukhari case!

In The Star,

Malaysiakini

&

MalaysiaToday

Also found an article that ask some good question!

1. How does a 63 year old man who spend 10 years in jail with bad back rape a young healthy 23 year old man!

And this is not a small guy! I mean he is tall!

If the sex was not consensual, how did an old man force himself onto a strapping young man 23 years of age (as noted by the analysts in Malaysiakini)? Were there accomplices? Was he drugged?

2. If he was sexually assaulted by Anwar Ibrahim, then why did he allow Anwar to get away with it more than once (based on his police report)?

3. Based on today's Star report how did he allow Anwar to fondled his breast for half an hour!

4. Also based on today's report , Even through Saiful had objected... Anwar somehow managed to lubricate himself/Saiful, penetrated Saiful and rape him long enough until Anwar managed to ejaculate inside him. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE!!! Saiful is not 12! He is 23! A fully grown man!! Anwar is an old man!!!

4. How will he address all the concerns about his pictures with government ministers floating around the net? Why did he visit Najib before he made the report?!?

5. How did he not shower, shit or wash his mouth for a few days?!?

THIS JUST DON"T MAKE SENSE!!!!

6. Finally why are all the Bapuk in Chow Kit (some of whom are Malays, still running around freely selling their ass for RM20) without the Police catching them?!?

7. Why so much resources of the Govt, the AG office and the Courts on this man?!?

If he was that bad! Please go catch him for something that is more believable!!

More injustice in Kangaroo Court of M'sia

Lets remember these bias judges and the good ones and ask for the sacking of the bias one when PKR comes to power!

The Court of Appeal has thrown out Hindraf legal adviser P Uthayakumar's defamation suit against a former inspector-general of police (IGP) and attorney-general over their claims that he has links with terrorist organisations.

In a 2-1 decision, the three-member bench ruled that the statements by the two respondents were directed at Hindraf, and not at Uthayakumar (left in photo).

In addition, the court ruled that Hindraf has been declared an illegal organisation and it therefore had nolocus standi to pursue legal action.

Justice KN Segara pointed to two news reports published on Dec 7, 2007, before Uthayakumar's arrest under the Internal Security Act (ISA) six days later.

"It is blatantly clear that the alleged defamatory statements were not directed at him (the plaintiff)," Segara said.

Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim agreed with his view.

Dissenting judge Justice Hishamudin Mohd Yunus said a subsequent statement published by Star on Dec 15, 2007, quoted IGP Musa Hassan as referring to Uthayakumar as having links to terrorist organisations.

"The IGP was referring to the plaintiff and four others detained under the ISA," he said.

Hishamudin said he was not satisfied that the plaintiff's statement of claim was not sustainable, as ruled by the majority decision.

"The plaintiff ought to be given his day in the High Court to give evidence," he said.

Uthayakumar's counsel M Manoharan(left) praised Hishamudin for his judgment.

"In view of this, we will appeal to the Federal Court," he told reporters outside the court.

The dissenting judge, he added. was among the "few good souls" in the judiciary.

Of course main stream media like TheStar Online will only print one side of the story! Bias, useless media that they are!
Yes I still read the Star but I don't believe a d@mn word they say!

'Outrageous claim'

Manoharan, who had been detained with Uthayakumar under the ISA, said AG Abdul Gani Patail should not have attempted to strike out the case.

If Gani (right) had proof of Uthayakumar's or Hindraf's 'terrorist links', he should have proved it in the course of the suit.

"Not a single shred of evidence shown so far back Musa's and Gani's claims," Manoharan said.

Disagreeing with the majority decision, Manoharan pointed out that the grounds for the ISA detention clearly stated that Uthayakumar had links to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE), the Tamil separatist movement in Sri Lanka.

"(The claim against my client) is clearly defamatory and outrageous. It is terrible to say such things and put us behind bars for 514 days. Now they are preventhing Uthayakumar from having his day in court.

"There is no such thing as striking out a defamation suit unless it is plainly not sustainable, such as in the case of suing the wrong parties. But here, there is a case."

'Wrongful claim'

Uthayakumar said the authorities were trying to get away scot-free by wrongfully claiming that he had terrorist links, and later using this as a reason to detain him under the ISA.

"Terrorists go by the barrel of the gun. We as human rights lawyers go by the nib of our pens," he said.

He said that he has been denied justice, as he has not been allowed to pursue his suit in the High Court.

"I am a lawyer of 20 years' standing. If justice is not served on me, I dread to think what (kind of) justice the man-on-the-street will get."

In his statement of claim, Uthayakumar had said Musa's statementhad portrayed him as a terrorist and that he had intent to use violence to overthrow the government.

On Dec 6, 2007, Musa (left) wasreported to have said: "Of late, there have been indications that Hindraf is trying to seek support and help from terrorist groups."

A day earlier, Gani told the High Court in Shah Alam, when applying to reject bail for 31 Hindraf supporters charged with illegal assembly, that Hindraf representatives had met with LTTE members.

Uthayakumar's RM100 million defamation suit against Musa and Abdul Gani was initially heard by Judicial Commissioner Zabariah Mohd Yusof.

On April 8, 2009, she dismissed an application by the respondents to strike out the suit.

What the @#*!! is an open verdict?!?

Coroner Azmil Muntapha Abas has returned an open verdict into the death of DAP political aide Teoh Beng Hock, whose body was found on July 16, 2009.

He ruled out suicide or homicide as the cause of death. He also said,

"I rule out verdict of suicide,” he told a packed courtroom.

Azmil said there exists sufficient evidence to show that Teoh's neck injury was pre-fall but "no evidence to confirm that this injury facilitated or contributed to Teoh's demise".

Azmil said that pathologists Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand and Dr Shahidan Md Noor both found evidence of bruising to the deceased's neck.

Both found that the neck injury could have caused a reduction of oxygen to the brain, leading to “celebral edema, mild or moderate hypoxia, confusion, fainting and decreased motor control”.

“(Dr Shahidan) submitted that the consequences of such an injury raise serious doubts as to the capability of the deceased exiting the window unassisted, both physically and mentally,” said the coroner.

“Evidence showed that Teoh did not have these injuries when he went into the MACC office, and you and I know he never left the MACC office.

“So how did he come by these injuries and who is responsible? These questions are of grave significance!!

Teoh, 30, was found dead on July 16, 2009 on the fifth floor landing of Plaza Masalam, Shah Alam, after overnight interrogation by the Selangor Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission at its office on the 14th floor of the building.

The inquest, which began on July 29, 2009, has been fraught with controversy, with expert witnesses giving contradicting evidence on the circumstances of Teoh's death.

Thai pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand testified that she was certain that it was not a case of suicide as the second autopsy conducted found neither defensive injuries on the deceased limbs nor a fracture on the skull typical of suicide by jumping.

She disagreed with British pathologist Dr Peter Vanezis, who testified that the fracture found on Teoh's left ankle showed that he landed on his feet, and that he was concious when the fell.

Coroner Azmil Muntapha Abas states that 37 witnesses testified including 12 expert witnesses. He adds that his duty is to determine how Teoh died, where he died, when he died and "if any person is criminally concerned in the cause of death".

He notes that Teoh died about 11.15am on July 16.

"Teoh was alive upon impact on the fifth floor. The cause of death was multiple injuries sustained by fall."

Teoh's handwriting samples were never obtained so it cannot be proved that he wrote the 'final note'; the coroner also said the MACC relied heavily upon to prove suicide on grounds that Teoh had felt guilty.

"I can only conclude that the note was authored by Teoh but cannot say it was a suicide note.

Teoh's sister Lee Lan is inconsolable, crying incontrollably. Her parents appear devastated but stoic.

The family of deceased political aide Teoh Beng Hock will turn to Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to make good of his word and instruct the opening of a Royal Commission of Inquiry, following the open verdict delivered in the inquest today.

“We want Najib to open a Royal Commission because we are unsatisfied with the verdict. So much evidence pointed to homicide so why couldn't the coroner find in that favour?

Soon after Teoh's death, Najib has promised the family that he will instruct a Royal Commission of Inquiry to be held on the matter if the family found the inquest, which began on 29 July, 2009, unsatisfactory.

My Comments on this!

If TBH did not commit suicide, and it was not an accident! Then what else is there but murder!!

The only proper question is WHO!?!? This is a dumb verdict!! It is a simple yes or no verdict!!

I hope all Malaysian who are not satisfied with this verdict will show Najib and BN how to give a proper verdict!

KICK BN OUT!!!

Click here to see how DUMB the MACC Lawyer were in this case!!