Uthayakumar, who represented himself on the dock, said Sabariah should withdraw herself from the case as an application was filed on Sept 10 to transfer the case to the High Court.
The transfer application was made on the grounds that the High Court was more competent to hear the sedition case that has international human rights elements as it contains serious allegations of ethnic cleansing.
“This court should be allowed to postpone pending a decision by the High Court. With these reasons and no disrespect, I ask you to withdraw yourself from the case,” said Uthayakumar.
Uthayakumar made lengthy arguments for the recusal although he and his counsels were repeatedly reminded that the court would only consider a written application to withdraw Sabariah.
Uthayakumar also added that he had yet to receive a response for an application filed on Sept 23 to obtain all documents pertaining to an alleged racial attack in Kampung Medan in 2001 under 51(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
“These documents would enable me to defend myself in this sedition charge regarding ethnic cleansing. The Kampung Medan case is the basis for me to enter defence,” he said.
Sabariah said she only received a letter informing her of the application for the Kampung Medan documents but the defence counsel had erroneously submitted the application document to the High Court.
“I have repeatedly told you to make an (formal) application if you intend to recuse me. Until that application is filed and heard, this hearing continues,” she said as she dismissed the recusal application.
She added that the Sessions Court could still continue despite the pending hearing date for the transfer application at the High Court.
“If the High Court orders a transfer, I would gladly oblige but in the meantime, this hearing needs to continue,” she said, adding that any records or ruling made by the Sessions Court would be “null and void” if the High Court made the decision for a transfer.
“That would not be prejudicial to anyone unless we delay this hearing,” she said.
The application to withdraw Sabariah was made by Uthayakumar just as the first witness, DCP Datuk Acryl Sani Abdullah Sani from Bukit Aman, was called to the stand.
“Why is it so hard to continue with the trial? We have wasted time from morning until evening. The witness has waited from 9am to 4.30pm because of these numerous applications,” said Sabariah, who was visibly annoyed.
A war of word also broke out when DPP Noorin Badaruddin made a passing remark, saying “Oh grow up!” to counsel N. Surendran who was making his submission to the court.
“You can’t say that in front of the judge! Aren’t you going to rebuke her, Your Honour?” he said.
Sabariah told Surendran to concentrate on more serious matters such as the applications.
Uthayakumar then made an application for a stay of proceedings, to which Noorin objected.
The court was adjourned to Tuesday to decide whether to allow the stay or otherwise.
Uthayakumar, legal adviser to the outlawed Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) movement, was charged with publishing a seditious letter on a website, an offence which carries a fine not exceeding RM5,000 or imprisonment up to three years or both upon conviction.
The letter dated Nov 11 was from Hindraf and addressed to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at No 10, Downing Street.
No comments:
Post a Comment