The Court of Appeal today allowed prominent lawyer Shafee Abdullah to appear as public prosecutor against Anwar Ibrahim's acquittal of his sodomy charge.
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal here today allowed senior lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah to appear as public prosecutor to lead the prosecution in its appeal against Anwar Ibrahim’s acquittal of his second sodomy charge.
Justice Ramly Ali chairing a three-member panel held that Muhammad Shafee’s appointment as public prosector in the appeal was valid and in accordance with the provisions of the law.
The panel, also comprising Justices Rohana Yusuf and Mohd Zawawi Salleh, unanimously dismissed Anwar’s application to have Muhammad Shafee disqualified from acting as public prosecutor in the appeal.
Justice Ramly said the Court of Appeal registry will fix the date for hearing of the prosecution’s appeal.
Muhammad Shafee was appointed by the Attorney-General by way of a “fiat” to lead the prosecution in its appeal in a bid to set aside the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s decision on Jan 9, last year which had acquitted and discharged Anwar on a charge of sodomising his former aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, 26.
Anwar, 64, was accused of committing the offence at a Desa Damansara condominium unit in Bukit Damansara between 3.10pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.
In his decision, Justice Ramly said there were insufficient material to support Anwar’s assertion that Muhammad Shafee was a material witness.
“He was offered to the defence as witness but he was not called as a witness. Furthermore, the trial has concluded and there is no possibility of him being called as a witness,” he said.
Justice Ramly said therefore the issue of conflict of interest and breach of the Legal Profession Act 1976 did not arise.
He did not accept the submission made by Anwar’s lawyer Karpal Singh who questioned the legality of Muhammad Shafee’s appointment under the Criminal Procedure Code.
He said Section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Code under which he was appointed, was a good law.
Karpal Singh earlier submitted that Muhammad Shafee’s appointment under section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Code to act on behalf of the public prosecutor in the appeal was based on the law that had fallen into desuetude in view of the amendment of Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
He said Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code was amended on April 1, 1998 stating only a senior deputy public prosecutor or a deputy public prosecutor could conduct criminal appeals.
“Section 376 (3) and Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be read harmoniously and they are not inconsistent with each other,” said Justice Ramly.
In the proceedings today, Karpal Singh had also argued Muhammad Shafee should be prohibited from representing the prosecution because he was a material witness as he was present when Mohd Saiful met the then deputy prime minister Najib Tun Razak (now Prime Minister) in his (Najib’s) house.
He said there were more than enough able hands in the Attorney-General’s Chambers to handle the appeal without the need to waste considerable public expense to appoint Muhammad Shafee.
Muhammad Shafee defended his appointment as a prosecutor on the grounds that the trial proper was over.
“At the appeal stage, we argue based on the record of appeals and there was no other evidence to be adduced,” he said adding that his presence in Najib’s house should not be questioned as he had never met Mohd Saiful.
Muhammad Shafee said the Attorney-General was granted the power under Section 376 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code to appoint a fit and proper person to be a full-fledged prosecutor.
At the start of today’s hearing, Karpal Singh told the court that Muhammad Shafee and Deputy Public Prosecutor Noorin Badaruddin had submitted separate affidavits in reply to Anwar’s application which they may need time to reply.
Muhammad Shafee told the court that the prosecution was withdrawing both affidavits.
Outside the court, Karpal Singh said they would appeal to the Federal Court.
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal here today allowed senior lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah to appear as public prosecutor to lead the prosecution in its appeal against Anwar Ibrahim’s acquittal of his second sodomy charge.Justice Ramly Ali chairing a three-member panel held that Muhammad Shafee’s appointment as public prosector in the appeal was valid and in accordance with the provisions of the law.
The panel, also comprising Justices Rohana Yusuf and Mohd Zawawi Salleh, unanimously dismissed Anwar’s application to have Muhammad Shafee disqualified from acting as public prosecutor in the appeal.
Justice Ramly said the Court of Appeal registry will fix the date for hearing of the prosecution’s appeal.
Muhammad Shafee was appointed by the Attorney-General by way of a “fiat” to lead the prosecution in its appeal in a bid to set aside the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s decision on Jan 9, last year which had acquitted and discharged Anwar on a charge of sodomising his former aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, 26.
Anwar, 64, was accused of committing the offence at a Desa Damansara condominium unit in Bukit Damansara between 3.10pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.
In his decision, Justice Ramly said there were insufficient material to support Anwar’s assertion that Muhammad Shafee was a material witness.
“He was offered to the defence as witness but he was not called as a witness. Furthermore, the trial has concluded and there is no possibility of him being called as a witness,” he said.
Justice Ramly said therefore the issue of conflict of interest and breach of the Legal Profession Act 1976 did not arise.
He did not accept the submission made by Anwar’s lawyer Karpal Singh who questioned the legality of Muhammad Shafee’s appointment under the Criminal Procedure Code.
He said Section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Code under which he was appointed, was a good law.
Karpal Singh earlier submitted that Muhammad Shafee’s appointment under section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Code to act on behalf of the public prosecutor in the appeal was based on the law that had fallen into desuetude in view of the amendment of Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
He said Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code was amended on April 1, 1998 stating only a senior deputy public prosecutor or a deputy public prosecutor could conduct criminal appeals.
“Section 376 (3) and Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be read harmoniously and they are not inconsistent with each other,” said Justice Ramly.
In the proceedings today, Karpal Singh had also argued Muhammad Shafee should be prohibited from representing the prosecution because he was a material witness as he was present when Mohd Saiful met the then deputy prime minister Najib Tun Razak (now Prime Minister) in his (Najib’s) house.
He said there were more than enough able hands in the Attorney-General’s Chambers to handle the appeal without the need to waste considerable public expense to appoint Muhammad Shafee.
Muhammad Shafee defended his appointment as a prosecutor on the grounds that the trial proper was over.
“At the appeal stage, we argue based on the record of appeals and there was no other evidence to be adduced,” he said adding that his presence in Najib’s house should not be questioned as he had never met Mohd Saiful.
Muhammad Shafee said the Attorney-General was granted the power under Section 376 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code to appoint a fit and proper person to be a full-fledged prosecutor.
At the start of today’s hearing, Karpal Singh told the court that Muhammad Shafee and Deputy Public Prosecutor Noorin Badaruddin had submitted separate affidavits in reply to Anwar’s application which they may need time to reply.
Muhammad Shafee told the court that the prosecution was withdrawing both affidavits.
Outside the court, Karpal Singh said they would appeal to the Federal Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment