Superior Courts consist of the Federal Court, Court of Appeal, High Court in Malaya and High Court in Sabah and Sarawak while Subordinate Courts are the Session Courts, Magistrates' Courts and Court for Children.
The Special Court, now provided for in Article 182 of the Federal Constitution was established in 1993 to hear all offences committed by the Rulers (the Rulers being the monarchical heads of the component states of the Federations of Malaysia) including His Majesty The Yang di-Pertuan Agong (the King).
The Federal Court was formerly known the Supreme Court before it was renamed the Federal Court since 1994 - is the highest court and the final appellate court in Malaysia and is housed in the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya.
Many of ordinary Malaysians may not have a clue as to where and how to seek further redress of any case rejected and/or dismissed by the Federal Court.
Being the final appellate court of the land, the Federal Court must be free of controversy, meaning - it must play the role of an independent Judiciary - upholding the Constitution by observing the rule of law and ensuring the accountability of the Legislature and Executive in keeping within their Constitutional limits of their power.
The common question we heard - is Malaysia's Judiciary free and independent?.
The Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials.
Malaysia's High Court had acquitted him of sodomy charges after a highly publicised and controversial 2-year trial.
The verdict has been received positively by the Malaysian public with pro-Anwar generally accepted it with relief and said that it could be a sign for the much said reforms while pro-establishment claimed the verdict showed Malaysian judiciary has always been free and independent.
For those not aligned to either PM Najib or Anwar, the verdict samples a hope for a more transparent judiciary in Malaysia.
PM Najib was reported to have said that the verdict exhibits the independence of Malaysia's judiciary, and that it "will help extend this transparency to all areas of Malaysian life."
He looked focused on reforms with his (what many said, long overdue) decisions to repeal the Internal Security Act (ISA) and three Emergency Ordinances as well as the formation of the Electoral Reform Select Committee, reflecting Malaysia is indeed transforming..
However, many opined that Anwar's acquittal does not come from his democratic reforms but more of the judiciary itself which exercised a great deal of impartiality while carrying out it's responsibility and upholding law in Malaysia.
For the moderate Malaysian majority, PM Najib's initiatives could reward him in return, a net gain to his own administration and it would be fair to state that the general public has been optimistic.
With the right momentum, his initiatives for a reform-minded administration could rehabilitate Malaysia's own image at international level.
Forget not, the international community is always following with great attention on Anwar's trial and any outcome of this particular trial would leave an impact on Malaysia's democratic development.
Now, are legal observers wrong when they said the 2004 Supreme Court decision to release Anwar has built up expectations that Malaysia's judiciary had regained it's independence?.
Anwar's sodomy case is back in the limelight when the three-men bench of the Appellate Court led by Datuk Balia Yusof Wahi, Datuk Aziah and Datuk Mohd Zawawi Salleh (delivered their decision in 90 minutes after hearing submissions) unanimously overturned his previous sodomy acquittal.
Some legal advocates had already been saying that the decision by the appellate court mark a further setback to the independence of Malaysia judiciary's.
Most Malaysians are aware that Anwar Ibrahim has been committed and enthusiastically rebuilding his political path and was indeed at the initial stage of preparing to contest a state seat by-election on March 23 where political analysts believed it's his bid to take up the post of Selangor state chief minister.
Political analysts claimed the charges and conviction were aimed at curbing Anwar's growing political popularity and that it is a strategy of using the courts to suppress the opposition and to weaken them from posing a threat to the ruling regime's political dominance.
Other than legal advocates, human rights were also reported criticising the decisions, calling the verdicts politically motivated.
Deputy Asia director for the U.S.-based rights group Human Rights Watch Phil Robertson said the verdicts appear to undermine the judiciaries' independence.
According to Asia-Pacific regional director for International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) Sam Zarifi, the judicial processes seemed aimed at sidelining Anwar from politics.
"The timing of the case obviously and the speed with which at the end they moved through the conviction and the sentencing and not hearing mitigation case at all, which means effectively Anwar is not going to be able to stand again for parliament and therefore is basically out of politics for a while. All this suggests very strongly that there is a political motive to this that this is not a proper case," stated Zarifi.
In the courtroom, protest was also heard coming from the gallery when Balia said the mitigation must be completed today. "Why are you trying to rush?" loudly asked an unidentified speaker.
I deliberately put Anwar's case above others simply because a lot have been said about the charges and conviction itself, be it locally or at international level.
As Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Sheikh Fadzir said it in one of his speeches,"Anwar is very popular. We must fix him. We have to bring him down. I heard it.. If we need to bring him down, the accusations must be the filthiest. When one is done, start another. Let it go on and on and on, until he is finished..,"
A party veteran, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir first involved in Umno since 1969. When Umno party was declared illegal by Malaysian courts, being Dr Mahathir loyalist, Abdul Kadir chose to be with the former by joining Umno Baru in 1988 and was selected as a member of the supreme council.
He has held the post of deputy minister and minister in Malaysian cabinet under the premierships of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Minister of Information was his last.
However, on March 19, 2012 he announced quitting Umno after more than 56 years with the party. He cites among others, "the changing of the value system - since the Tunku to present. Now, corruption is widespread and too big.. no more in millions, but billions."
Following the five years' jail sentence after the Court of Appeal allowed Putrajaya's appeal to set aside the High Court's acquittal freeing him from a charge of sodomising Mohd Saiful, it would indeed be interesting to follow every bit how the Federal Court would conduct the appeal filed by Anwar.
In his petition of appeal against the sentence, he cites 35 grounds as to why his conviction and sentence should be set aside.
Many predicted it's going to be a guilty verdict, taking into account the sign of obedience of Malaysia's court system to the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) - particularly Umno.
Obviously, only a conviction could put Anwar Ibrahim into political oblivion.
Anwar himself is in fact convinced that he would be imprisoned for his sodomy conviction, probably even longer than the five years he received.
Majority Malaysians could easily refresh their memory of the five-and-a-half month trial - one of the lengthiest criminal cases in the country's history - and a highly political judgement where a guilty verdict was virtually guaranteed from the outset when Malaysian High Court Judge Augustine Paul made clear that he regarded the entire defence case as "irrelevant" to the trial.
He found the former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim guilty of four charges of corruptions and sentenced him to six years jail on each charge.
Anwar served the six-year jail sentence and was subsequently released in 2004 - during which he claims he was beaten.
Then, came the second sodomy case where he is charged with sodomising his former political aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan on June 6, 2008.
The murder of Altantuyaa Shaariibuu.
A Mongolian national, she was a murder victim who was either murdered by C-4 explosives or first murdered before her remains blown up with C-4 explosives on October 18, 2006. Her murder became significant taking into account of the alleged involvement of persons close to Prime Minister Najib Razak.
The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction of former charged killers Kpl Sirul Azhar Umar and Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri, ruling the cummulative effect of misdirections by High Court Judge had rendered the judgement unsafe.
The Shah Alam High Court had in 2009 delivered a guilty verdict to the above duo for killing Altantuya at Mukim Bukit Raja (Puncak Alam) in Selangor between 10pm Oct 19 and 1am on Oct 20, 2006.
Ironically, a former political and defense analyst from the Malaysian Strategic Research Centre think-tank Abdul Razak Baginda who was jointly charged for abetment in the murder was acquitted by the High Court on Oct 31, 2008, after the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against him. To date, no appeal by the prosecution was made against his acquittal.
The Federal Court is now at the limelight following prosecution's appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision in acquitting Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar.
The five-member panel is lead by Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria with Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Richard Malanjum and Federal Court judges Abdul Hamid Embong, Suriyadi Halim Omar and Ahmad Maarop hearing the appeal for three days from Monday June 23, 2014.
The Federal Court has deferred their decision to a date which would be announced on a later date after the prosecution and defense ended their submissions on June 25.
During the three days hearing, it was reported that Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin, lawyer for Sirul Azhar claimed that his client was framed by the police for the killing.
Chief Justice Arrifin asked,"For what reasons and by whom would your client be made a scape goat?"
Kamarul said,"My client has said that the persons behind the crime was not brought to court,"
For many Malaysians and the international community following the case, it would be interesting to find out whether the Federal Court being the higest court of the land would serve justice to the late Altantuya and others and most importantly, will the Apex Court lead to exposure of the real killer(s).
The Catholic Church vs the Home Ministry over ban on the use of the word "Allah" by the Herald.
It was reported that Christians can still use the word "Allah" in Church, said the Prime Minister's Office in response to the Federal Court decision barring the usage of the same by the Herald.
In a statement, it said that the Government is committed to the 10-point Cabinet solution aimed at addressing differences among Muslims and Christians. It called on all parties to respect and abide by the Apex Court's decision and said it was only applicable to Herald.
"Malaysia is a multi-faith country and it is important that we manage our differences peacefully, in accordance with the rule of law and through dialogue, mutual respect and compromise," it said.
On June 23, 2014, the Federal Court had rejected the Catholic Church's bid in getting a leave to challenge the Home Ministry's ban on the use of the word "Allah".
The 4-3 majority decision was delivered with Chief Justice Arifin, Court of Appeal president Justice Raus Sharif, Chief Judge of Malaya Justice Suriyadi Halim Omar in favour and Chief of Sabah and Sarawak Justice Richard Malanjum, Federal Court judge Justice Zainun Ali said leave should be granted and another Federal Court judge Justice Jeffrey Tan Kok Wha said there should not be a rush to judgement of the issues and its merits, which had yet to be canvassed and argued.
I would comfortably say the statement by the Prime Minister's Office as "easy said than done".
If we are analytical enough, the issue, since it's initial stage was met with so much of hate statements, speeches and deeds by the bigoted, narrow-minded, mean and vicious, as if Malaysia is on the verge of becoming a hateful state.
We also saw how the racist spoke about the non-Malay intruders and immigrants. Perhaps, little did they realised that other than the non-Malay intruders and immigrants, many - if not majority of the so called Malays - are as a matter of fact, of foreign origin, and that includes ME!.
Like many others, I'm always aware of my roots - Indonesia. Am I wrong to say that many in the Malaysian cabinet are in reality, of foreign origin! but I'm not too sure if the vocal academician Reduan Tee is aware of his roots.
Now, look up again at the statement by the Prime Minister's Office that,"Malaysia is a multi-faith country and it is important that we manage our differences peacefully..."
And now try refresh at the vicious who had threatened to behead people.
Just in case you overlooked, In a Perkasa rally in Shah Alam on Monday 23 June, Negeri Sembilan Perkasa chief Ruslan Kassim made a statement in his show of support for the Selangor Islamic authorities who seized over 300 Malay and Iban language Bibles last January,"We will chop their heads off. It is better that they die than live to become parasites of Islam," Ruslan was reported as saying.
Under heavy fire from various quarters, he said it was merely a figure of speech!. (If only he was still weth PKR and his statement was directed to Umno MPs, he would have been swiftly picked-up and charged.)
Under such given circumstances, rise the questions :-
- Where are those leaders supposed to be the arbiters?.
- Why are they seen reluctant and/or failed to make appropriate stance based on the principles and values they were sworn in to uphold?.
- Has Malaysia turned into a state where it's leaders are only giving priority to votes come the general election?.
- With power and adequate legislations, why are they so fearful to even indicate their stance against despicable leaders and their despicable deeds?.
- Are not hearing whatever have been said by the hatemongers?.
- Have they become so coward to show those bigots that apart form themselves, there are others in this Bolehland and that their brutal philosophies could only pose a threat to race and religious harmony?.
- Last but not least - If they proudly claimed themselves a Government that is so consecrate to honesty and of course, the rule of law - Can they ensure that citizens are protected and heard?.
Honestly, I dare not visualise what would eventually happen to this nation should the BN regime comfortably keeping their "one-eye" close to the bigoted, narrow-minded, mean and vicious to dictate and shout out loud malicious words with their tounges and lips uttering God and their hearts brewing hatred.
I feel, allowing such scenario to continue is not only wrong, but would reflects failure on the part of the establishment in ensuring harmony in this country.
No doubt, most of us can think for ourselves and I'm sure, not many will easily be infuenced by the bigoted, racist and/extremist who tried to dictate our thoughts for objectives only best known to them.
Now that the Federal Court has done with the Catholic Church, many Malaysians and the international community would anxiously follow on Anwar Ibrahim and Altantuya's cases.
Being the final appeal court of the land, the Federal Court must be the last avenue in seeking justice, without judgements being disputed.
It is fundamental for the Federal Court to stay impartial and keeping them free of any influence or interference especially from the Executive.
No comments:
Post a Comment