Will Sosilawati's killers get a fair hearing?

By FMT Staff

KUALA LUMPUR: The arrest of eight people in connection with the murder of millionaire businesswoman Sosilawati Lawiya and three others might solve the mystery of their disapperance since the eve of Merdeka Day on Aug 30.

But several legal issues remain to be debated as to whether those arrested will have a fair trial. FMT spoke to several prominent lawyers who expressed their reservations on the matter.

Senior lawyer M Kumarendran said Bukit Aman's director of CID, Mohd Bakri Zini, should wait for the prosecution to reveal details of the evidence gathered when the trial commences.

"He should not act in a manner prejudicial to the accused and deny them a fair trail. He should not have allowed himself to succumb to media and public pressure even though it's a high-profile case involving the lives of four people," Kumarendran said.

Yesterday, Mohd Bakri confirmed that four suspects, including a woman, aged 19 to 54, had confessed that they had killed Sosilawati, 47, her driver Kamaruddin Shansudin, 44, a CIMB branch officer Noorhisham Mohammad, 38, and lawyer Ahmad Kamil Abdul Karim, 32.

The suspects apparently told investigation officers that they burnt the bodies of the four and their ashes were scattered in Sungai Gadong, Tanjong Sepat, about 15km from Banting town.

Investigations also revealed that one of the suspects, a 41-year-old lawyer, was the mastermind behind the killings and that he was assisted by his younger brother, also a lawyer, and six workers.

Kumarendran said evidence presented during the trial should not go against the basic principle of fair play where a person is presumed innocent of a crime until proven guilty.

"This case is already on trial by the media. Whatever is being reported might influence the judge who might form his own perception before hearing the evidence," he added.

He said Mohd Bakri has indirectly put pressure on the prosecution which cannot rely on cautioned statements of their confessions under Section 113 of the Criminal Prosedure Code (CPC).

"The issue here is that admissibility of cautioned statements under the CPC had been amended in September 2007, where it clearly states that it should not be used as evidence in any trial.

"However, the only exception on this was under Section 27(1) of Evidence Act, 1950, where statement made to police led to a discovery of a fact," he added.

He also said the prosecution still needed to rely on collaborative and circumstantial evidence in establishing a prima facie case against the accused.

Disciplinary issues

Another senior lawyer, T Gunaseelan, said everybody should be given a fair chance.

"No matter how gruesome or wanton the crime may be, the basic principle of fair trial for all the accused should be assured," he added.

Another lawyer based in Banting said he was aware that the 41-year-old lawyer has serious diciplinary issues with the Bar Council.

"Generally he and his brother are low-profile lawyers and they were well-cultured and well- mannered people," said the lawyer who declined to be identified.

He also said both of them were involved in some charity work in Banting.

Meanwhile, a check with the Selangor Bar revealed that both brothers were suspended by the Bar Council from practising in 2007 when they were fined RM2,000 over a land deal.

Both of them had appealed against the diciplinary board's decision in the High Court, and the court upheld the board's decision.

The matter is now with the Court of Appeal and set to be heard in October.

An official of the Bar confirmed that both brothers are still in practice, pending the appeal.

"They were given certificate of practice as legal assistants and not as partners... they are not allowed any legal documents or cheques belonging to the firm," the official added.