27 March 2011


Tell me if the following rulings by the judge in Anwar Ibrahim’s trial is not mind boggling.First the court ruled that a towel, a toothbrush and a mineral water bottle introduced by the prosecution were inadmissible as they had been unlawfully obtained.

Subsequently, the same judge overruled his own decision and held that the items are now admissible and can be relied upon by the prosecution.Perhaps because Anwar has been accused by the prosecution of indulging in an unnatural sexual act, an unnatural trial is therefore to be expected.

What I mean is that people are too naive or foolish if they expect Anwar’s trial to be placed in the same category as other ordinary criminal trials involving the average person.

Don’t believe me? Can anyone tell me if any other sodomy complainant has been allowed to see the prime minister or his wife at their official residence? Or if other victims could personally contact the IGP? Or allowed to provide their police statement in the privacy and comfort of a hotel room? Or if Anwar is not being put on trial in the court of public opinion, courtesy of the pro-government media? Or if other prosecution affidavits are published in newspapers before they are submitted to the trial? Or if we have unrelated organisations organising protests to pressure the accused into surrendering his DNA samples?

And the lists goes on.

Like it or not Anwar’s trial has never been usual and natural to begin with. You don’t see many such stunts appearing anywhere else but here.When Anwar is tried, it seems that the entire machinery of the government have been in operation to viciously finish him off. As far as Umno is concerned, Anwar is the enemy of the State thus any means to destroy him is justified.

One must be crazy to even dream that Anwar would be accorded a genuine due process. What transpired inside and outside the trial reaffirms the people’s belief that the ghost of his first sodomy trial has now returned with a vengeance.

Judging from what has happened throughout his trial so far, people suspect something must be wrong somewhere.Is his a legal or political trial? Is he or our administration of justice being tried? What do his enemies really want?

Many well-planned coincidences also emerge in Anwar’s fiasco.

When Anwar was to be nominated as a candidate for Permatang Pauh’s by-election, the public were suddenly shown Saiful’s oath in the Federal Territory mosque.

Now, when people are to go to the polls in Sarawak, they are shown yet with another stunt — a sex video tape purportedly featuring Anwar as the main actor of the scene.

For the first time, a sex video was publicly viewed without any interference from the police. And for the first time, Malaysians are told Datuk T comprises of three individuals .

Anyway Anwar should be thankful to his political rivals as they do not mind Rahim Tamby Chik’s role in this new release video.When Rahim shows his utmost concern on sex related materials, history is being rewritten.

Never mind Anwar... lawan tetap lawan

This article is courtesy of Hanipa Maidin and the original can be found in http://peguampas.blogspot.com

25 March 2011



1)Aspek perundangan; Akta Polis 1967 adalah akta yang memberikan kuasa kepada polis dalam melaksanakan tugasan mereka. Dalam Akta ini, satu bab khusus iaitu bab VII menjelaskan dengan terperinci kuasa-kuasa yang dibolehkan oleh undang-undang untuk pihak polis melaksanakannya. Sebagai contohnya Seksyen 20(3)(i) memberi kuasa untuk polis menangkap haiwan yang berkeliaran.

2)Spesifiknya kepada persoalan sekatan jalanraya yang dibuat oleh polis. Seksyen 21 Akta Polis memberikan kuasa secara umum kepada polis mengawal ketenteraman dan keamanan di jalan umum (public road). Manakala Seksyen 26 secara khusus memberi kuasa untuk polis membuat halangan lalulintas (road barriers). Menurut Seksyen 26 ini, pra-syarat untuk pihak polis hanyalah jika polis berpandangan halangan itu perlu untuk maintain dan preserve undang-undang. Peruntukan ini juga memberikan kuasa untuk polis mengambil tindakan yang munasabah (reasonable steps) untuk polis menghalang sesiapa atau mana-mana kenderaan daripada bertindak untuk melepasi halangan tersebut.

3.Di bawah Seksyen 24 Akta juga memberikan kuasa kepada polis untuk memeriksa lesen dan kenderaan tanpa sebarang waran jika polis mengesyaki ada perlanggaran undang-undang berlaku dan ujian kepada pihak polis hanyalah sekadar mengesyaki secara munasabah sahaja. (reasonable grounds)

4. Justru, menjawab persoalan saudara, pihak polis memang diberikan kuasa untuk membuat sekatan jalanraya, memeriksa kenderaan, lesen dan sebagainya. Cuma, dari aspek perlaksaannya, mungkin ada perbezaan jika melibatkan unit yang berlainan contohnya trafik, mencegah penyeludupan dan jenayah walaupun kesemuanya adalah polis. Begitu juga dengan tujuan sekatan dijalankan; samada operasi besar-besaran atau sekatan rutin atau mungkin sesuatu operasi khas seperti ops sikap, menyebabkan perlaksanaannya menjadi berbeza. Oleh itu, cara perlaksaan sekatan jalanraya seperti berapa jumlah polis, pakaian mereka, adapegawai Inspektor ke atas atau tidak, samada ada kon atau meja dan sebagainya berkemungkinan boleh menjadi berlainan antara satu sama lain.

5.Persoalan lebih penting adalah apakah hak kita sebagai rakyat dan apakah safeguard kita dalam menghadapi situasi sebegini? Apatah lagi dalam keadaan Akta Polis memberi kuasa yang luas dan penafsiran yang longgar untuk polis melaksanakannya. Pertamanya, kerjasama perlu diberikan kepada pihak polis kerana kegagalan kita mematuhi arahan kita boleh dituduh dibawah Akta Polis sendiri seperti di bawah Seksyen 26 tadi ataupun kesalahan lebih serius iaitu menghalang penjawat awam di bawah Seksyen 186 Kanun Keseksaan. Kita tidak mahu keadaan di mana asalnya tiada asas untuk polis menahan tetapi dek kerana adanya resistence untuk bekerjasama, maka polis sudah ada asas menahan.

6. Keduanya, walaupun pihak polis mempunyai kuasa yang luas dan kita hendaklah berkerjasama; tidak bermakna kita tidak boleh bertanya kepada polis apakah tujuan lesen kita atau kenderaan kita hendak diperiksa. Kita juga berhak untuk tahu untuk apakah sekatan jalanraya dibuat dan pihak polis perlu memaklumkan kepada kita semua maklumat ini.

7. Ketiganya, sekiranya pihak polis ingin membuat tangkapan kepada kita atas apa alasan sekalipun, hak kita sebagai orang yang ditahan dijamin oleh perlembagaan dan juga di dalam Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (CPC). Kita perlu dimaklumkan apakah sebab kita ditahan. Kita juga diberi hak untuk berkomunikasi dengan peguam dan juga keluarga. Pihak polis juga hanya ada kuasa menahan sehingga 24 jam dan perlu membawa kita ke hadapan majistret untuk memohon perintah reman jika ingin meneruskan tahanan terhadap kita.

8. Keempatnya, oleh itu apabila kita sudah memahami kuasa polis dan juga hak kita, maka nasihat secara praktikalnya adalah apabila ada sekatan jalanraya berilah kerjasama kepada polis. Jika ada unsur-unsur bahawa polis ingin menangkap anda, maka berkeraslah dengan hak anda seperti hak untuk menghubungi keluarga dan peguam (simpan nombor peguam yang boleh dipercayai). Jika ada unsur-unsur rasuah atau setel dimulakan dari pihak polis, maka jangan terjebak; catit atau sekurang-kurangnya hafal nama dan nombor polis itu untuk tindakan lanjut.

9.Akhir sekali, jika anda berada di sekatan jalanraya, buatlah seperti biasa apatah lagi jika anda memang tidak lakukan apa-apa kesalahan. Jika anda disaman (saman sebenar bukan notis saman ekor) sekalipun, ambil sahaja saman itu dan bersedialah untuk membayar kompoun (jika mengaku) dan disaman ke mahkamah dan membela diri (jika tidak mengaku). Anda boleh menjadi warganegara yang celik hak anda serta menghormati undang-undang pada masa yang sama. Anda mampu mengubahnya!

Ihsan dari Unit Tindakan jenayah (TINJU) Jabatan Undang-Undang dan Hak Asasi Manusia (JUHAM) DPPP.

15 March 2011


Oleh : Ariff Azami Hussein


It's not great to be on the defensive side as compared to the offensive side. Take debate as an example. However amusing the tone and the way a debate is held (its all scripted and sound like Indonesian), surely its way better to be on the "pembangkang" side rather than the boring "pencadang" side.

The same goes to football matches. Its great to watch an ultra attacking team like Newcastle, Barca, Spurs etc winning matches 4-3 or 6-0 rather than watching effective but defensive minded teams like Liverpool, Inter Milan, Malaysia (recently) nicking it with a 1-0 win.

As proceedings in court especially criminal courts are treated and viewed as a battle too, thus being on the attack or otherwise is certainly part of the game. After all, at the end of a trial, at least a party is deemed to be on the losing side. I believe this is a wrong perception of the criminal justice system as I view the justice is always going to win; whether the end result is a conviction, an acquittal or a sapu bawah karpet decision (DNAA).

Being a defense counsel, when defense is called; that is when everything seems to be upside down. The role is reversed. Some lawyers act and treat it like it's already 2012 (end of the world?), while actually its only half of the battle. A lot of cases still got acquittals after the judge convinced and satisfied with the OKT's story (some really like to hear OKT's story).

Having said that, this is the most eagerly waited stage for the DPPs to show their talent as future defense counsels (should they shift to the better side?). This is the time for them to pulang paku buah keras to the not so nice defense counsels who objected to everything that they try to prove during prosecution's stage even when they ask for toilet break (time to brainwash witness?). This is the time to use puts and suggests in questioning accused and defense witnesses, and also opportunity to call defense witnesses as pembohong, penipu and penyamun.

For me its just fair. If during the prosecution's stage we act in less than gentleman manner, engage in unnecessary exchange of words and annoy everyone; then we should've expected the same treatment being thrown at us as a retaliation. On the other hand, if we carry out our duty as defense counsel effectively yet with courtesy, most probably we will be treated the like when we are at the receiving end.

In a criminal trial, I believe we shouldn't be too overconfident that there will be no case to answer however lousy the case, the witnesses, the exhibits and the parties involved. You will surely stumble upon a decision lousier than the lousy case you've expected to win handsomely. Preparing for the worse would be a good thing to do. At least if defense is called, you have a defense to begin with and will not be accused of presenting recent inventions or afterthought story or lawyer's version (not OKT's) during defense stage.

For certain type of cases that the prosecution is equipped (rightly or not) with additional arsenals such as presumptions (can gantung orang ke with presumptions?), so its best to be mentally prepared for the defense stage at the earliest opportunity . Cases like corruption cases (all law upside down), drugs cases and theft cases are some examples of cases that is likely to get stretched into the second half of the battle i.e defense stage.

But look at the bright side. If the case goes beyond prima facie case, then you have more experience to acquire, more knowledge to gather and more records to be broken (assuming you never lost a case before). At least you will gain the experience of a defense counsel that have completed a full trial, and to make it sweeter, winning it at the end when the odds are against you. Wassalam.

Ehsan dari www.loyarberjurus.blogspot.com