Who delayed the trial? Not my dog


March 15,2019

Who delayed the trial? Not my dog

by Muhammad Shafee Abdullah

https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/467815

COMMENT | On March 10, I was at my home in Bukit Tunku where I have one matured guard dog of mixed breed. Six months ago, I acquired another mixed breed, this time a puppy (now about 10-months-old) intending that it would be a fully-trained guard dog, as having one guard dog without a second one for any eventuality would be unwise.

I trust guard dogs more than human guards. Even my security guards think the same way, as they rely on my guard dogs to secure the compound while manning the guard houses and the gates. I have a professional dog trainer, a former police K-9 unit personnel trained by the FBI.

Although still a puppy, my dog is bigger than most adult dogs of his breed and extremely strong, fast and cunning. He is very playful as one would expect of a dog that age. When I come up to my house, he stands erect on his hind legs unsupported, even for as long as a minute, without moving.

On that day, the dog was let loose in the outer compound. When he saw me, he became excited and rushed towards me playfully, but I was not expecting this. I was careless and lost my balance and fell squarely on my left arm. I felt no pain even several hours later.

However, that night, I felt my left hand stiffening. At first, I thought nothing of it, believing it must be due to working hard in preparing for the appeals at the Court of Appeal on Monday and Tuesday.

I requested my Indonesian employee to massage my hand. He did so as I conducted discussions regarding the appeals in my library in the presence of at least five of my lawyers until about 1am on March 11. I went back home at about 4.30am, and there was no significant change in the feeling of stiffness.

Perhaps, the massage could have exacerbated the latent injury and the next morning, I felt pain when doing routine things.

I began to have more pain at the COA hearing on the first day (March 11), but it was not something that I could not bear. In any case, I alerted the COA of my possible delay the next morning, as I had to attend to a significant mention of Samirah Chandra Muzaffar’s case at the Shah Alam High Court due to some troubling developments.

At that time, my left hand was not an issue. But that night, I felt a throbbing pain and my wife noticed a significant swelling on the upper side of the left hand.

I could not sleep that night so I attempted to read my preparations for the second day at the COA, but the pain became worse and the swelling grew to half the size of a tennis ball. The pain was so severe I concluded that I must have fractured my hand from the fall.

I went to the court in Shah Alam early in the morning on March 12 and on the way, arranged for an orthopedic specialist at the Columbia Hospital in Shah Alam to have a look at my hand. But the timing was not conducive, so I had to rush to the Shah Alam Court, where the matter ended at 10.15am.

When I arrived in Putrajaya at the COA, my associate lawyer, Harvinderjit Singh, was shocked to see the swelling on my hand and told me to immediately go to the hospital.

Initially, my plan was to complete parts of the appeal in the morning and then head to the hospital either during lunch break or in the late afternoon after the case. I have a high threshold for pain, and I thought I could complete the submission before seeking treatment. But my team were concerned and advised me to seek an adjournment of the fourth appeal to the next day.

Consulted orthopedic specialist

When the court started, we applied for the fourth appeal, which was mostly my submission, not to be undertaken on that day as I needed immediate medical treatment. The attorney-general did not object to us doing the submission within the same week, but not Thursday (March 14) as he would be engaged with the Johor sultan.

Friday, on the other hand, was too short (considering Friday prayers) so we settled for Wednesday. Everything was agreed to when I left the COA leaving Harvinderjit to tend the fort. But what I did not know was that after I had left, all parties, including the court, decided that Friday would be a better option for the hearing of the appeal.

As I had a little more time, I went to consult my regular orthopaedic specialist at the Tung Shin Hospital in Pudu.

The specialist was kind enough to wait for me. Immediately upon examination, he was of the opinion that there could be a fracture. But thank God, the X-ray revealed otherwise.

It was massive soft tissue and blood capillaries injury causing significant internal bleeding that accounted for the tennis ball-like swelling and pain. I was given medication and medical leave up to Friday. But I would be attending court as I did this morning, tomorrow and Friday at the COA.

As you can see, we are not delaying the trial notwithstanding exigent circumstances.

Who delayed this trial? Consider the below honestly, and tell me who is the culprit.

The SRC International trial was fixed commencing from February 12, 2019 to March 29, 2019. But the AG decided at the eleventh hour to add three new additional charges under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (Amla) at the trial court on Jan 28, 2019.

This was hardly two weeks from the trial without giving us the benefit of an earlier notice, especially as this would significantly change the trial dynamics, components and programmes.

A decent AG would give us an early notice so that we could offer an opinion if the three new charges could be jointly tried with the seven existing SRC charges on January 28 itself. If he had given us notice, we would not have to ask for time to consider this suggestion by the public prosecutor on January 28.

We also realised that there could be a serious problem in the mode of charging the three additional charges as they sneakily preferred the charges at the High Court itself calling them “charge 4, 5 and 6” without going through the lower court, as these new charges are trilable by the Sessions Court and need a special legal transfer mechanism for the charges to be transferred to the existing SRC High Court. Any chambering student in a criminal based practice would know this.

Anyway, Justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali, realising we were unnecessarily taken by surprise, adjourned the matter for further consideration on February  7, just after Chinese New Year. Ask yourself who caused this delay?

As usual, we prepared tirelessly for the submission on Feb 7 in spite of the Chinese New Year and the need to prepare for the main trial starting imminently on Feb 12.

But, lo and behold, the AG personally turned up this time on Februry 7 to give us further shocking news for further concern.

An attempt to sabotage?

First, he said, to avoid troubling the court deciding on the joinder of charges, he was withdrawing the three new charges. What? Is this really happening? Why didn’t he have the decorum to tell us earlier so that we did not have to waste countless red-eyed days and nights preparing the arguments on the joinder?

We complained. Was this an attempt to sabotage by taking us away from preparing the main case? In any case, the statement by the AG that the new charges were withdrawn to save the court time in deciding about the joinder was not frank, as the real reason for the withdrawal was the AG had realised the blunder his office had made in the way he proferred the three additional charges directly at the High Court. This is having blunder and arrogance all together.

Now tell me honestly who caused this unnecessary waste of time and delay?

But that is not all. The AG, out of the blue, suddenly realised and told the court that as a result of two Federal Court decisions, two years and one year earlier respectively, he had second thoughts about the constitutionality of his transfer certificates under Section 418(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 60 of Amla and the transfer of all the seven charges of SRC cases to the High Court. But hang on, didn’t the AG say constitutional law is his forte?

The AG withdrew all the transfer certificates and literally told the judge that the SRC cases be reverted to the Sessions Court. This is now the subject of appeal on Friday.

Friday is also the subject of whether the judge can flip the AG’s transfer into his own initiated transfer without moving the cases physically to the Sessions Court first (as suggested by the AG himself) and bring them back to the same court.

To let a decision such as this stand would have serious consequences. This decision not only applies to Najib Abdul Razak, but literally everyone who is facing the criminal justice system in Malaysia. These are serious issues that would be dealt with at the COA.

This has never happened before in our country nor in the Commonwealth. A huge issue for determination by the COA is whether a trial if proceeded upon could be declared a nullity and my client could be the victim of a retrial.

Now would it not delay things further for everyone concerned if a retrial is ordered down the line? That is the reason the other coram of the COA granted a stay of the SRC trial until final determination of the appeal. The merit of the appeals is to be determined soon.

Now tell me who caused the delay?

Further among the four appeals is also our claim that we and the court must be given a copy of the fiat to prosecute of Sulaiman Abdullah (and by same arguments in another case involving Gopal Sri Ram).

We need this innocuous document which nevertheless provides the basis for the “fit and proper person” test for us to challenge the appointment if it is called for. Since 1938, our system and all the Commonwealth have provided for inspection fiats of this sort including when I became the prosecutor in Anwar Ibrahim’s Sodomy 2 appeals.

Ironically, the AG initially classified the fiat as an official secret (OSA) which was the excuse provided by Sulaiman in the High Court when he refused to provide the written fiat of his appointment. The AG dropped another bombshell by saying he was not relying on the official secret, and that it was just a “red herring,” and there was never an issue of OSA to begin with.

A red herring? From the mouth of the AG in court? Whose red herring? The AG’s red herring? Why did he mislead us yet again? We prepared a monumental amount of work on the OSA.

Now tell us honestly, after reading this and the facts available, who is causing the delay of the SRC trial.

One has to be as blind as a bat or as deaf as a doornail not to see or hear clearly that it is the Attorney-General’s Chambers which is delaying the trial by raising new things almost on the eve of the SRC trial.

READ THIS: https://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/467873 by Mariam Mokhtar


MUHAMMAD SHAFEE ABDULLAH is the lawyer for former premier Najib Abdul Razak.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

Share this story

AddThis Sharing Buttons

749Share to WhatsAppShare to PrintShare to More

91

11 thoughts on “Who delayed the trial? Not my dog

  1. a clear conscience is the best medicine for health. honesty is the best policy. one has to ask his/her heart whether is guilty or innocent

  2. Would you as a reader accept such balderdash?
    I could not bring myself to read beyond the first sentence.
    Believe it or not!

  3. In many countries last minute postponement of cases come at a financial cost to the party requesting for it based on the reason

  4. (Quote) “…it is the Attorney-General’s Chambers which is delaying the trial by raising new things almost on the eve of the SRC trial.”

    This statement is interesting, for it leads to several questions – but firstly, allow me to make one qualification before I proceed any further: #(1) I have no legal background; #(2) I am not a legal expert; and #(3) Never have I been nor am I now, a student of the law. Notwithstanding that, here are the questions:-

    1. If the delay is indeed caused by the Attorney-General Chambers “raising new things almost on the eve of the SRC trial’, and if we assume that the Attorney-General Chambers would most certainly be aware of the implications of such actions – being a public office made up of legal experts, it is perfectly reasonable for us to assume so – why then did it still decide to proceed with the action? Could it then be safe for us to assume that the Attorney General Chambers did so because it indeed wanted to delay the trial for purposes which only it (and the powers that be connected to it) knows? If so, what could be those purposes, and why pursue them when it could only lead to the delay of the trial?

    2. Or, we could also assume that the good counsel i.e. Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah has made an untrue statement but do so knowingly. Such an assumption then raises the question as to why he would want to do so; wouldn’t doing so lead to serious legal implications – meaning jeopardising any chance and prospect of him succeeding in the appeal he made to the courts as counsel to Dato’ Seri Najib – and in the face of such prospect, why would a competent & experienced legal counsel like him want to take on such a risk? A legal counsel who is as competent and experienced as he is could not unnecessarily act in such a way in the face of such a risk; it is safe for us to say that this is a preposterous assumption to make. That means we are then left with one unavoidable conclusion – he i.e. datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah could not possibly have made an untrue statement – let alone doing so on paper – knowingly.

    3. Following the line of reasoning above, we could then reach a simple conclusion: Since the good counsel Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah could not possibly have made an untrue statement knowingly, it could be surmised therefrom that the Attorney General Chambers do indeed expected – and sought – the delay by “raising new things almost on the eve of the SRC trial’ (as he i.e. Datuk Shafee Abdullah had claimed), and that it probably purposely had done so in its pursuit of some objectives which we the general public is not privy to. But then we are left with the question as to what those purposes could have been, and why pursue them still when it would lead to the delay of the trial? But I suppose we could assume that they must have been purposes well worth the risks, and that probably is the reason why we are not privy to them.

    Just a thought.

  5. Well, methinks the ‘mind-boggling, highly discriminatory, unprecedented, regrettable’ AG, aka Twin barreled TT is as incompetent (some say corrupted by Tokongism), as this Dog Fart Lauyar is suggesting. The AG chambers is as bad and politically skewered – if not worse – than under the previous admin.

    https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/467906

  6. Further to the previous line of reasoning I presented, there is actually other interesting questions to consider.

    Consider the following line of reasoning:-

    Suppose that the AG did not proceed to raise new things on the eleventh hour (Note: I gather that is what Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah meant by the phrase “on the eve”), would the defense counsel then still choose to file for an appeal (even if it could lead to delay in the trial), and what legal question/s would he have sought to settle by the appeal he makes? But for every time that he appeals, and for every delay that the appeal leads to, does not it prove that the defense is indeed seeking to delay his client’s trial a little longer?

    Just a thought.

  7. MO1 (de facto leader of UMNO Naru) and his team are just trying all sorts of ways to delay and obstruct court proceedings. At the same time, MO1 is steeping up efforts to win public opinion ……

  8. Just look closely at what jurisprudential value, if any, those “appeals” bring to the trial in question or the administration of justice in general and you have your answer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.