(28/09/2009)
In P. Uthayakumar’s ‘ethnic cleansing’ Sedition trial by Civil Sessions Court Judge Sabariah binti Othman today (28/09/2009), the Judge had refused to recluse herself despite submissions of a perception of biassness by Counsels M. Manogar, N. Surendran and the accused P. Uthayakumar also representing himself as submitted hereinbelow:-
1) The Attorney General Tan Sri Gani Patail who is a member of the Legal and Judicial Services Commission is also an employer of the said Sessions Court Judge. The Attorney General also decides on her promotion, demotion, salary increase, transfer etc. Despite appearing in person to ‘vindictively prosecute P.Uthayakumar under UMNO’s instructions, the Attorney General was allowed to conduct the proceedings by the said learned Judge. It was submitted that the Judge may not have been able to decide without fear or favour.
2) On the date of charging on 11/12/2007 the bail allowed at RM 50,000 and P. Uthayakumar’s International passport impounded was excessive. This Bail sum was ten (10) times the maximum fine under this Sedition charge which is highly unusual and unprecedented. This was rightly turned down on appeal subsequently by the High Court Judge to RM 10,000.00 and the return of his pasport. Also submitted was the fact that in Karpal Singh’s Sedition case a bail of a mere RM 2,000.00 was imposed and Karpals’ passport was never impounded.
3) No submissions were heard or allowed especially to P. Uthayakumar’s Defence Counsel on this excessive bail sum and the impounding of the passport condition.
4) In Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s case all proceedings in the Sessions Court was stayed pending the disposal at the High Court but which was denied by this Sessions Court Judge in P.Uthayakumar’s case here despite having been informed that an application had on 10/9/2009 been filed at the Kuala Lumpur High Court but still then no adjournment was allowed on this ground.
5) Counsel M. Manogar had informed the Court that another application had also been filed for amongst others the first information report, Investigation papers on the Kg Medan ‘ethnic cleansing’ case and the Attorney General’s conclusion that there be no criminal prosecution for murder of the five innocent Indians of Kg Medan who had been murdered and the 100 over inflicted with grievous bodily harm by a mysterious malay muslim mob believed to be sponsored by UMNO and who are from outside Kg. Medan in 2001.
6) The ‘ethnic cleansing’ in Kg. Medan has to do with P. Uthayakumar’s ‘ethnic cleansing’ letter to the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the subject of the charge against P. Uthayakumar.
7) This is a criminal prosecution but why is this civil court Judge hearing the same especially so when this is not a part heard case.
8) In the authority of Lennon v Metropolitan Properties 19691 QB 577, it was held by Lord Denning that on the mere perception of biasness by the members of the public or the accused the Judge ought not sit in the case. IF the judge sat his decision cannot stand. Despite the above the learned Judge had from 9.30a.m onwards insisted and persisted in going on with the proceedings ‘at any cost’ and had refused to grant an adjournment despite being informed that the High Court Judge who is scheduled to hear this appeal was still on leave and would be back tomorrow and that the High Court file No 44-157-2009 had already been opened. Counsels M.Manogar and N. Surendren after a lengthy persuation process managed to see the Judge in Chambers with the Deputy Public Prosecutors but had not made any headway with this ‘bioused’ Judge.
When the matter resumed at 2.30p.m and after lengthy submissions the Judge however had refused to recluse herself and insisted that the matter go on. Further submissions were also made by both Counsels and also P. Uthayakumar right up to about 5.00 p.m. Despite giving an undertaking that an appeal would be filed first thing tomorrow morning to the Kuala Lumpur High Court and for a stay of proceedings until the appeal at the High Court is heard and disposed off, this Judge refused to grant the adjournment but insisted in proceeding tomorrow (29/09/2009) at 12.00p.m.
Justice must not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. This is the case in the England and almost all other civil societies but this may not apply to Prime Minister’s Najib’s One Malaysia.
Posted by Editor.
Human Right Party
No comments:
Post a Comment