Oleh Lokman Nor Adam
Tarikh: Rabu, Februari 18, 2006 @ 08:11:22 GMT
Topik: 1
Sejak dibebaskan daripada tahanan ISA, Parti Keadilan Nasional sememangnya bukan lagi parti yang gah sepertimana sebelum kami dipenjarakan. Pelbagai cara telah kami gunakan untuk cuba mengembalikan kegemilangan parti Keadilan, namun ternyata usaha tersebut tidak mampu merubah keadaan.
Untuk menghimpunkan 1000 orang bagi menghadiri kes mahkamah Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim pun payah. Ketika inilah saya, Hamdan Taha, Zahid Mat Arip telah dipanggil oleh Ezam. Saya masih ingat kata-kata Ezam ketika itu, "Man, Kau rasa BA ni boleh memerintah ke?"
Sayapun menjawab: "Tidak dalam masa 10-20 tahun lagi."
Kemudian Ezam mula menerangkan kepada kami bahawa "there is no way" untuk Datuk Seri Anwar bebas melalui Barisan Alternatif (BA). Jelas beliau: "Aku dan Lokman telah sama-sama merasa penderitaan di penjara, tapi nasib kami lebih baik kerana keadaan di Kamunting tidak seperti di Sungai Buloh. Tahun ini merupakan tahun keenam Datuk Seri Anwar akan berhari raya di penjara. Nampak gaya kita kena ubah strategi dan menggunakan pendekatan lain."
Ketika itu kami memberikan sepenuh perhatian kepada apa yang beliau ingin sampaikan. Lalu beliau terus menambah: "Aku rasa takde orang lain yang boleh membebaskan Boss melainkan Dollah (Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi)."
Menurut Ezam, di dalam Umno ada tiga kumpulan manusia. Kumpulan pertama ialah kumpulan yang membenci Anwar dan kumpulan ini mahu Anwar terus di penjarakan. Tetapi kumpulan ini semakin lemah kerana mereka ini terdiri daripada orang Dr Mahathir (Mohamad).
Kumpulan kedua pula ialah mereka yang membenci Anwar tetapi tidak sampai hati untuk melihat Anwar terus dipenjara. Namun kumpulan ini tidak berbuat apa-apa untuk membebaskan Anwar.
Kumpulan ketiga pula adalah kumpulan yang suka pada Anwar dan mahu melihat Anwar bebas seperti Zahid Hamidi, Affifudin Omar dan lain-lain. Namun menurut Ezam, mereka ini juga tidak buat apa-apa. Itu sebabnya jelas Ezam: "Kita perlu wujudkan kumpulan keempat, iaitu kumpulan yang suka pada Anwar, mahu melihat Anwar bebas dan boleh meyakinkan Pak Lah bahawa Anwar perlu dibebaskan demi survival politik Pak Lah.
Kelana Jaya
Ketika ini, saya mencelah: "Kau tak takut ke orang maki kita kalau masuk Umno?" Jawab Ezam: "Orang akan faham Man (Lokman) yang kita sanggup korbankan diri kita demi kebebasan Anwar. Kita deal-lah hari ini Boss bebas, dalam tempoh 24 jam kita akan isytihar masuk Umno."
Menurut beliau lagi: "Kita tubuh parti ini untuk membebaskan Anwar, kalau parti ini mati sekalipun takpa asalkan Anwar bebas". Idea Ezam ini telah kami persetujui dan ketika itu kami telah menyatakan ikrar kami untuk bersama beliau. Di peringkat awal Hamdan dan Zahid telah diarahkan untuk memulakan perbincangan dengan satu dua pemimpin Umno.
Saya juga telah diarah untuk membina semula hubungan dengan rakan lama saya yang dekat dengan Pak Lah dan juga merupakan junior Ezam semasa menuntut di Universiti Islam Antarabangsa (UIA). Menjelang bulan Ramadhan lalu, perbincangan menjadi semakin serius kerana kami mengharapkan agar kali ini Anwar dapat kembali berhariraya bersama keluarganya.
Inilah yang membawa kepada pertemuan Ezam dengan Tan Sri Muhammad Muhd Taib. Pertemuan ini telah berlangsung di kediaman rasmi Tan Sri Mohamad Taib, di Kelana Jaya. Ketika itu, Ezam telahpun berpindah ke Seksyen 7, Shah Alam. Ezam telah menceritakan kepada kami bertiga apa yang berlaku di antara beliau dan Mat Taib.
Mesyuarat empat sekawan ini pasti akan diadakan selepas setiap pertemuan penting. Lokasi biasa yang kami pilih ialah di Ravi’s Corner, Sunway. Menurut Ezam, Mat Taib berjanji akan membawa hasrat kami untuk menyertai Umno kepada Pak Lah. Namun, dari apa yang Ezam dapat lihat, isu pembebasan Anwar ini sukar untuk Mat Taib bangkitkan kepada Pak Lah.
Menurut Ezam, Mat Taib hanya mengulang tentang pentingnya kami kembali bersama Umno tanpa syarat demi menyatukan semula orang Melayu. Kegagalan dalam pertemuan yang pertama ini telah membawa kepada pertemuan kedua, iaitu dengan Datuk Dr Khir Toyo, Menteri Besar Selangor. Saya masih ingat bahawa pada hari pertemuan diadakan, Ezam menganjurkan majlis berbuka puasa di rumahnya.
Saya sendiri telah menghantar Ezam di hadapan Sekolah Menengah Seksyen 7 dan kemudiannya beliau telah menaiki kereta Haji Azmir, naib ketua Umno Bahagian Shah Alam untuk ke rumah Khir Toyo. Pertemuan beliau kali ini lebih lama, iaitu sejam setengah, berbanding dengan pertemuan dengan Mat Taib selama setengah jam sahaja.
Letak jawatan
Menurut Ezam, pertemuan dengan Khir jauh lebih baik dan Khir turut menyatakan komitmen beliau untuk membawa perkara ini ke pengetahuan Pak Lah. Selepas Hari Raya Aidilfitri, Ezam telah memanggil kami bertiga dan menzahirkan keputusan mengejut beliau untuk meletakkan jawatan sebagai Ketua Pemuda Keadilan. Saya telah bertanya kepada beliau, kenapa terburu-buru nak letak jawatan dulu sedangkan syarat kita belum dipenuhi.
Beliau menjawab: "Aku rasa kalau aku tak letak jawatan untuk tunjukkan kepada Pak Lah yang aku ikhlas untuk bersama dia, sampai bilapun dia takkan jumpa aku." Ketika itu saya telah menerangkan kepada beliau: "Zam, kalau kau tinggalkan Keadilan dan masuk Umno, BN akan dapat "double bonus." Tapi bila kau tinggalkan Keadilan, itupun dah memberikan bonus percuma kepada mereka. Tunggulah syarat kita diterima dahulu."
Hamdan dan Zahid juga tidak bersetuju dengan keputusan Ezam ketika itu. Namun kami semua tahu bahawa apabila Ezam sudah membuat keputusan, tidak guna untuk kami membazir masa cuba meyakinkan beliau. Hasrat Ezam untuk meletakkan jawatan dan bertemu Pak Lah dalam keadaan beliau bukan lagi ketua Pemuda Keadilan ini, telah Ezam sampaikan kepada Pak Lah melalui teman lama saya yang juga merupakan junior Ezam di UIA tadi.
Pertemuan ini berlaku di Coffee House, Hotel Sunway Resort sekitar Hari Raya keenam atau tujuh. Pada hari ini jugalah, Ezam menyerahkan suratnya untuk Pak Lah di mana beliau telah menyatakan hasratnya untuk menyokong kepimpinan Pak Lah demi perpaduan Melayu. Sejak Ezam mengambil keputusan untuk meletakkan jawatan, beliau telah mula mengadakan beberapa pertemuan dengan teman-teman terdekat.
Namun, tidak semua yang beliau beritahu tentang hasrat sebenarnya ingin meletakkan jawatan, adalah untuk menyertai Umno. Rata-rata yang beliau temui, hanya dimaklumkan tentang hasratnya untuk meletak jawatan dan menumpukan perhatian kepada badan bukan kerajaan (NGO). Namun ada di antara Exco yang rapat, seperti Azwan Din, Dato Sanusi Osman dan satu-dua orang yang lain, telah dimaklumkan tentang usaha membebaskan Anwar melalui Umno.
Pada ketika ini juga, satu surat telah dihantar kepada Datuk Seri Anwar melalui Datin Seri Wan Azizah Ismail, bagi menjelaskan hasrat Ezam untuk meninggalkan Keadilan dan menumpukan perhatian kepada NGO. Saya masih ingat bagaimana Ezam menceritakan keadaan Datin Seri Wan Azizah yang menangis teresak-esak apabila Ezam menyatakan hasratnya itu.
Namun keadaan mula berubah apabila Ezam menerima maklum balas daripada Datuk Seri Anwar. Jawapan yang Ezam terima daripada Datuk Seri Anwar berhubung hasratnya untuk meninggalkan Keadilan sememangnya cukup keras, "if Ezam wants to leave the party, that means he wants to kill the party and betray me, and I will fight him" (terjemahan: Kalau Ezam mahu meninggalkan parti, itu bermakna dia mahu membunuh parti ini dan mengkhianati saya, dan saya akan menentangnya).
Hyatt Saujana
Jawapan Anwar ini telah disampaikan oleh YB Azmin Ali dan Khalid Jaafar kepada Ezam. Inilah yang menyebabkan Ezam membatalkan hasratnya untuk meletakkan jawatan sebagai Ketua Pemuda Keadilan. Pada ketika inilah, Ezam mula mendedahkan tentang pertemuan beliau dengan Mat Taib dan Khir Toyo kepada Anwar Ibrahim dan pimpinan parti lain. Ezam juga telah meminta Anwar menamakan wakil yang Anwar pilih bagi menghadiri pertemuan dengan Tan Sri Khalil Yakob di kediaman Khir Toyo.
Malangnya, tiga wakil yang Anwar namakan untuk menyertai Ezam dalam pertemuan tersebut tidak dapat bertemu dengan Khalil kerana kebetulan Khalil tersangkut dalam kesesakan lalulintas. Pertemuan dengan Khalil yang sepatutnya berlangsung seminggu selepas itu juga akhirnya tidak berlaku hingga kini. Pada 9 Disember 2003, Ezam mengarahkan saya menempah sebuah bilik mesyuarat untuk 10 orang di Hyatt Saujana Subang.
Pada hari inilah saya telah menyaksikan bagaimana perundingan untuk memasuki Umno berlaku di depan mata saya sendiri. Umno diwakili oleh Datuk Aziz Samsuddin yang diiringi oleh seorang temannya, Hashim Lim, manakala Ezam merupakan jurucakap kepada lima orang lain yang akan menyertai Umno bersama beliau, iaitu Ruslan Kassim, Hamdan Taha, Zahid Mat Arip, Dr Wahid Suhaimi dan saya sendiri.
Di dalam pertemuan ini, Ezam telah menyuarakan kesediaan kami untuk menyertai Umno dan harapan kami untuk melihat Datuk Seri Anwar dibebaskan. Datuk Aziz menyatakan kesediaan beliau untuk menyatakan hasrat kami kepada Pak Lah dan memaklumkan bahawa kami akan bertemu semula dalam masa dua minggu dari tarikh tersebut.
Pertemuan dengan Aziz ini hanya kami berenam yang tahu kerana Ezam tidak mahu pimpinan lain termasuk Anwar tahu. Apa sebabnya sayapun tidak tahu. Dalam pertemuan ini, Hashim Lim telah merakam gambar kami bersama Aziz untuk disimpan sebagai kenang-kenangan kerana ianya mungkin akan menjadi detik bersejarah katanya.
Bila pertemuan di bilik Mutiara 1, Hyatt Saujana Subang ini telah dijelaskan sendiri oleh Ezam dengan menggunakan Master Card miliknya. Setelah dua minggu berlalu, tiada sebarang berita kami terima dari Aziz (Samsuddin). Kegagalan pertemuan ketiga ini, menurut Ezam, merupakan mesej yang jelas bahawa Pak Lah masih belum bersedia untuk membebaskan Anwar.
Ubah pendirian
Di saat inilah pendirian Ezam mula berubah. Beliau telah menghantar satu mesej kepada Aziz (Samsuddin) yang berbunyi: "Sekiranya kami bersedia menyertai Umno dengan tidak meletakkan pembebasan Anwar sebagai syarat, boleh tak Pak Aziz bantu kami dalam dua perkara. Pertama, agar kami diberikan jawatan politik dan kedua bantuan ekonomi".
Saya telah bertanya dengan Ezam: "Kenapa secara tiba-tiba you ubah syarat kemasukan kita ke dalam Umno?" Jawab Ezam: "Man, kau kena faham yang ramai orang nak jatuhkan Pak Lah. Kalau Pak Lah bebaskan Anwar sekarang, orang akan gunakan isu pembebasan Anwar itu untuk memastikan prestasi Pak Lah dalam pilihan raya akan datang ini teruk. We got to be fair to Pak Lah (Kita mesti adil kepada Pak Lah). Itu sebabnya kita kena join (masuk) Umno dulu and make sure (pastikan) Umno menang besar dalam pilihan raya akan datang, Pak Lah mesti bentuk kabinetnya sendiri dan dia mesti ditabalkan sebagai presiden Umno dulu. Bila dia dah menang election (pemilihan) Umno barulah kita push (gesa) dia untuk bebaskan Anwar. Masa tu, bila Pak Lah dah yakin yang kita betul-betul dengan dia, diapun tak takut nak bebaskan Anwar. Sebab masa tu nanti, semua orang kuat Anwar dengan dia. Kita akan convince (yakinkan) Pak Lah, jika Anwar lawan dia, kita sendiri akan lawan Anwar".
Mendengar hujah Ezam ini, sayapun bertanya sekali lagi kepada Ezam: "Kau tak takut ke orang maki kita kerana masuk Umno sedangkan Anwar terpenjara". Jawab beliau: "Biarlah orang maki kita sekarang, lepas Anwar bebas enam bulan atau setahun dari sekarang, mereka akan faham".
Bagi diri saya yang berjuang dalam Keadilan kerana Anwar, jika Anwar boleh keluar enam bulan atau setahun dari sekarang, itu sudah cukup bagus daripada merengkok enam tahun lagi.
Mesej terakhir Ezam kepada Aziz (Shamsuddin) ini juga tidak mendapat jawapan yang Ezam mahukan. Jawapan yang Ezam terima ialah Umno hanya akan menerima kami tanpa syarat dan sebagai balasan, kami juga akan diterima tanpa syarat dan tanpa sebarang sekatan untuk memegang jawatan atau bertanding dalam pilihan raya. Ini telah membawa kepada pertemuan terakhir Ezam dengan junior beliau di UIA tadi.
Sebelum dia bertemu dengan orang kuat Pak Lah itu, dia telah memberitahu saya bahawa dia terpaksa berterus-terang dengan juniornya itu bahawa dia perlukan ”role” (peranan) dalam Umno. Namun, Ezam segan untuk menyatakan perkara tersebut secara terus terang kepadanya. Maka dia memberitahu saya jika dia menyebut tentang ”role” yang dia perlukan, maka saya perlu memberitahu orang itu yang dia perlukan political role (peranan politik), jawatan menteri atau setidak-tidaknya timbalan menteri.
Jawatan politik
Semasa pertemuan di Coffee House Hotel Sunway Resort, Ezam telah jelas berbohong kepada juniornya itu. Dia tidak berterus-terang menyatakan yang dia perlukan ˜political role”, tetapi sebaliknya menggunakan nama Anwar untuk meminta jawatan tersebut. Kata Ezam: "I dah beritahu Anwar tentang ˜my intention to leave the party,” (niat saya untuk keluar parti) dan akan tumpukan kepada NGO, tapi Anwar said no, no (kata, jangan, jangan). Apa mengarut NGO, NGO ni. I want u to leave the party, join Umno, support Pak Lah and tell Pak Lah that I am willing to accept him as Prime Minister. But, you must make sure you ada role" (saya mahu awak keluar parti, masuk Umno, sokong Pak Lah dan beritahu Pak Lah saya bersedia menerimanya sebagai Perdana Menteri. Tetapi awak mesti pastikan awak ada peranan).
Bila saya mendengar Ezam cakap macam itu, rasa macam nak tergelakpun ada. Macamana dia boleh suka-suka cakap macam ni? Bila mendengar apa yang Ezam ungkapkan tadi, maka orang kuat Pak Lah itupun bertanya kepada Ezam:"What kind of role (apa bentuk peranan) yang you mahu. Mungkin I could talk to Pak Lah (saya boleh beritahu Pak Lah) untuk letak you jadi pengarah satu institut macam IKD ke".
Ketika itu Ezam mula menjeling saya dan saya mula menyampuk dengan berkata: "Ezam ni politician (ahli politik), bukan academician (ahli akademik) yang you boleh letak jadi pengarah institut. Maksud Ezam dia perlukan political role (peranan politik)". Tanya orang kuat Pak Lah itu lagi: "Yalah, what kind of political role (apa bentuk peranan politik) yang you mahu?".
Maka sayapun menjawab: "Political role (peranan politik) ni macam minister (menteri) ke or at least Deputy Minister (atau sekurang-kurangnya timbalan menteri)". Junior Ezam tadi terus melenting,
"Oh no! Not only Pak Lah wont consider such thing (Oh tidak, bukan saja Pak Lah tidak mempertimbangkan perkara seperti itu), I sendiripun tak berani nak bring this matter to Pak Lah (kemukakannya kepada Pak Lah). Kalau you cakap awal-awal lagi yang you nak Deputy Minister (timbalan menteri) lain cerita. Ini you dah tulis surat menyatakan hasrat you untuk bersama Pak Lah secara ikhlas and in fact (malah) you dah suruh I beritahu Pak Lah yang you akan resign as (letak jawatan sebagai) ketua Pemuda Keadilan sebagai tanda keikhlasan you, sebelum jumpa Pak Lah, takkan I nak beritahu dia you letak syarat macam ni sekarang? I dah convince (yakinkan) Pak Lah yang you benar-benar ikhlas nak bersama dia, he was very happy (beliau amat gembira). Now (sekarang), kalau I bawa benda ni pada Pak Lah, orang keliling dia akan kata, you see (Lihatlah),.he wants something (dia mahu sesuatu). Kredibiliti I akan rosak".
Itulah pertemuan terakhir Ezam dengan orang Umno sepanjang pengetahuan saya. Semasa dalam perjalanan balik, Ezam (dengan nada marah) berkata kepada saya:"Kita kena all out (habis-habisan) belasah Pak Lah. Tapi kalau kau nak ikut yang lain-lain masuk Umno buta macam tu, aku tak kisah".
Ketika itu saya memberitahu Ezam:"Kalau nak ikut hati, aku 10 kali lagi tak nak masuk Umno, lebih-lebih lagi kalau Boss tak boleh bebas. Macamana kita nak tepis maki-hamun orang yang mengharap pada kita. Dahlah kita ni baru keluar penjara".
Kenyataan bersumpah
Maka, pada malam tersebut kami telah sama-sama berikrar untuk meneruskan perjuangan dalam Keadilan. Malam itu jugalah lahir idea untuk buat program ˜Gerakan Anwar Bebas dan meneruskan program Jelajah Pemuda BA yang terhenti di peringkat awal gara-gara perundingan untuk membebaskan Anwar. Apa yang menyedihkan saya, apabila soal perundingan ini mula dihidu oleh ahli-ahli Keadilan yang lain dan kebetulan saya sedang hebat mengkritik beliau, semua beban kesalahan telah diletakkan ke atas diri saya.
Padahal, tidak pernahpun walau sekali saya mengajak sesiapa menyertai Umno, apatah lagi menawarkan ganjaran kewangan kepada mereka. Saya merasa terpanggil untuk menulis tentang perkara sebenar yang berlaku ini kerana saya merasa jijik mendengar kenyataan Ezam di Warta KL bahawa beliau ditawarkan jutaan ringgit untuk menyertai Umno.
Malah di atas pentas ceramah, beliau pernah menyatakan bahawa beliau ditawarkan jutaan ringgit dan jawatan menteri kanan jika sanggup menyertai Umno. Ini semua adalah pembohongan belaka, termasuklah cerita yang direka oleh Ezam untuk dijadikan kenyataan bersumpah oleh Zoolhelmi Yahya, ketua Pemuda Keadilan Perak.
Sejak Umi Hafilda dan Azizan Abu Bakar menggunakan kenyataan bersumpah untuk mengaibkan Datuk Seri Anwar, Ezam tidak pernah percaya kepada kenyataan bersumpah. Macamana sekarang ini dia boleh menggunakan taktik keji Dr Mahathir ini untuk menjatuhkan maruah lawan politiknya. Nasihat saya kepada Ezam, jika nak libatkan nama saya dalam cerekarama saudara di lain masa, tolong pastikan di mana saya berada ketika cerekarama beliau kononnya berlaku.
Jadi, tidaklah malu macam cerita Zoolhelmi ni. Siapa yang akan percaya kepada saudara sekarang apabila Zoolhelmi mengatakan bahawa beliau, saya, Zahid, Ruslan, Hamdan, Hanafiah Man dan lain-lain, menerima wang pendahuluan RM 25,000 seorang dari seorang "Datuk yang tidak dikenali" di rumah Datuk Najib (Razak), sedangkan pada malam 10 Februari itu, saya berada di rumah Sdr Rahman Othman, timbalan presiden Keadilan untuk menunjukkan bukti-bukti penyelewengan dana parti yang saudara lakukan.
Kalau betullah saudara ditawar RM1 juta untuk menyertai Umno, sudah tentu saudaralah yang akan mengepalai kumpulan 12 itu kerana inilah peluang saudara untuk memiliki RM1 juta dengan titik peluh saudara sendiri, tanpa perlu mengelapkan dana untuk perjuangan parti.
Lokman Adam adalah bekas setiausaha Pemuda Keadilan dan ahli Majlis Tertinggi yang digantung keahliannya.
kzso : wonder where is lokman right now and can't wait for other topics
Thursday, 19 July 2007
Saturday, 14 July 2007
‘hearsay’ and inadmissible?
From : KTemoc Konsiders
Oh oh oh, it’s the usual from PKR that malaysiakini has just reported.
The party leadership is still pushing the campaign against Najib (but not AAB or KJ), relying on what Burmaa Oyunchimeg, prosecution witness, told the court on on June 29. She claimed she saw a photograph of Altantuya dining in Paris with the third accused Abdul Razak Baginda and a government official known only as ‘Najib Razak’.
malaysiakini reported:
PKR wants the police to check the passport of Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to determine if there is any link between him and slain Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu.
Speaking at a press conference in Kuala Lumpur today, the opposition party’s supreme council member Latheefa Koya said it is important for the police to look into this matter since Najib previously denied knowing Altantuya.
She said this based on the testimony of the murder victim’s cousin Burmaa Oyunchimeg during the ongoing murder trial.
Latheefa said the police should check the passports of all three individuals, to determine if they were in Paris at the same time.
This has become a joke when PKR political interests have degenerated into exploiting a side issue to press in its campaign against Najib for … whatever interests its leadership might and may have in mind. But then, hardly unexpected of a de facto party with a de facto leader.
It so happened I asked Raja, a visitor to Susan Loone blog, who has been noted to post erudite and very carefully thought out legal commentaries in relation to the Altantuyaa’s case, a few questions this morning.
I have learnt a few things from him and even had one of my vague understanding of hearsay evidence confirmed as correct – champagne all around ;-)
I asked Raja:
… how would the court (i.a.w world’s best practice, of course) assess or categorize the ‘evidence’ or statement by Burmaa Oyunchimeg about the photo which she saw but could not produce.
Would her claim that the late Altantuyaa told her a person in the photo was a Malaysian officer named Najib Razak be considered as ‘hearsay’ and inadmissible?
I have heard of some exceptions to hearsay evidence where (from vague recollection) a dying man were to reveal to a priest or monk that his murderer was, say, KTemoc (gulp), that could well be admitted - would I be correct here, and if so, would this example, admittedly drawing a long bow here, be akin to the Altantuyaa’s
Raja commented (I have slipped in some comments of my own but in different highlights):
a. For something to be admissible it must first be relevant to the issue.
b. Then if relevant it must not be inadmissible for being hearsay evidence. For example, a confession statement by a witness or a suspect under interrogation by the police is inadmissible if the purpose is to use it in court to prove the truth of contents.
That prosecution witness was not answering questions posed to her by the prosecution when she said she was shown by Altantuya a photograph of a group of people sitting around a table for a meal and among them was a government official (meaning the DPM), Razak and the deceased. If the purpose was to prove the fact of a possible conspiracy involving a high government official and the accused, and to attack the credibility of that government official, that government official is not on trial, nor is he a witness - and so is the Government of Malaysia not on trial.
“…witness was not answering questions posed to her by the prosecution when she said she was shown by Altantuya a photograhg …” – hmmm, KTemoc wonders why the prosecution witness decided to go on her own bat by bringing out the thus-far unavailable photograph which dear old Tian Chua had pounced on to help make available through some ‘magic’ of his own
Some foundation must first be built by counsel to allow its admission into evidence - and in this case the prosecution had nothing like that in mind. The witnessed was not being examined on the possibility of such a photograph or any photograph. While that may be so, prosecution should have allowed the witness to continue. If the defense objects the judge would most certainly sustain that objection on the ground of relevancy.
But that was not what happened. Both counsel from the prosecution and the defense stood up to object! The attorney holding a watching brief has had to ’stand up’ to ask the judge to allow the witness to have her say or complete her testimony.
I find the behavior of counsel for the prosecution strange though not unexpected. Allowing their witness to continue with her testimony would not have damaged their case - though irrelevant.
I am not sure why the defense is objecting!
Before evidence is admissible in court, it has first to be relevant. The photograph is not relevant.
Really? You wouldn't have thought so with the way they PKR crowd have been baying.
Forget the trial for a minute. If relevant what does it prove? It proves that the DPM had lied to the people when he said he did not know the accused - but he is not even a witness in this trial?
Could that be made a basis to charge him with conspiracy to murder? In my opinion - insufficient to prove anything more than the fact that they were having a meal. Period.
Hmmm, legally speaking of course. But politically speaking, which ends justify the dirty poo flinging, trust a party virtually bankrupt of policies and (democratic) process to squeeze to the last drop of Mongolian blood to somehow extract Najib’s from the non relevant issue.
Then Raja commented on my hypothetical case of “a dying man revealing to a priest or monk that his murderer was, say, KTemoc (gulp)” and whether such an example could be akin to Burmaa’s claim of Altantuyaa showing her a photo?
A dying declaration is an exception to the common law rule against hearsay. You are right.
… explains my elation and reckless offer of champagne …
Altantuya never made a statement that could be said to be her ‘dying declaration’. The letters left by her referring to Razak is admissible only to prove her state of mind if that is in issue - and not the truth of contents e.g. Razak was trying to have her killed unless she stopped harassing him.
Good try PKR, and I do mean it, because as they say, fling enough poo and some will inevitably stick. And bugger the feelings of the family of the late Altantuyaa by unnecessarily (for them) indulging in sensational mud rucking, and bugger also ethical due process.
The reformasi way?
kzso : any good lawyers can advise on this 'hearsay’ and 'inadmissible' in court?
Oh oh oh, it’s the usual from PKR that malaysiakini has just reported.
The party leadership is still pushing the campaign against Najib (but not AAB or KJ), relying on what Burmaa Oyunchimeg, prosecution witness, told the court on on June 29. She claimed she saw a photograph of Altantuya dining in Paris with the third accused Abdul Razak Baginda and a government official known only as ‘Najib Razak’.
malaysiakini reported:
PKR wants the police to check the passport of Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to determine if there is any link between him and slain Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu.
Speaking at a press conference in Kuala Lumpur today, the opposition party’s supreme council member Latheefa Koya said it is important for the police to look into this matter since Najib previously denied knowing Altantuya.
She said this based on the testimony of the murder victim’s cousin Burmaa Oyunchimeg during the ongoing murder trial.
Latheefa said the police should check the passports of all three individuals, to determine if they were in Paris at the same time.
This has become a joke when PKR political interests have degenerated into exploiting a side issue to press in its campaign against Najib for … whatever interests its leadership might and may have in mind. But then, hardly unexpected of a de facto party with a de facto leader.
It so happened I asked Raja, a visitor to Susan Loone blog, who has been noted to post erudite and very carefully thought out legal commentaries in relation to the Altantuyaa’s case, a few questions this morning.
I have learnt a few things from him and even had one of my vague understanding of hearsay evidence confirmed as correct – champagne all around ;-)
I asked Raja:
… how would the court (i.a.w world’s best practice, of course) assess or categorize the ‘evidence’ or statement by Burmaa Oyunchimeg about the photo which she saw but could not produce.
Would her claim that the late Altantuyaa told her a person in the photo was a Malaysian officer named Najib Razak be considered as ‘hearsay’ and inadmissible?
I have heard of some exceptions to hearsay evidence where (from vague recollection) a dying man were to reveal to a priest or monk that his murderer was, say, KTemoc (gulp), that could well be admitted - would I be correct here, and if so, would this example, admittedly drawing a long bow here, be akin to the Altantuyaa’s
Raja commented (I have slipped in some comments of my own but in different highlights):
a. For something to be admissible it must first be relevant to the issue.
b. Then if relevant it must not be inadmissible for being hearsay evidence. For example, a confession statement by a witness or a suspect under interrogation by the police is inadmissible if the purpose is to use it in court to prove the truth of contents.
That prosecution witness was not answering questions posed to her by the prosecution when she said she was shown by Altantuya a photograph of a group of people sitting around a table for a meal and among them was a government official (meaning the DPM), Razak and the deceased. If the purpose was to prove the fact of a possible conspiracy involving a high government official and the accused, and to attack the credibility of that government official, that government official is not on trial, nor is he a witness - and so is the Government of Malaysia not on trial.
“…witness was not answering questions posed to her by the prosecution when she said she was shown by Altantuya a photograhg …” – hmmm, KTemoc wonders why the prosecution witness decided to go on her own bat by bringing out the thus-far unavailable photograph which dear old Tian Chua had pounced on to help make available through some ‘magic’ of his own
Some foundation must first be built by counsel to allow its admission into evidence - and in this case the prosecution had nothing like that in mind. The witnessed was not being examined on the possibility of such a photograph or any photograph. While that may be so, prosecution should have allowed the witness to continue. If the defense objects the judge would most certainly sustain that objection on the ground of relevancy.
But that was not what happened. Both counsel from the prosecution and the defense stood up to object! The attorney holding a watching brief has had to ’stand up’ to ask the judge to allow the witness to have her say or complete her testimony.
I find the behavior of counsel for the prosecution strange though not unexpected. Allowing their witness to continue with her testimony would not have damaged their case - though irrelevant.
I am not sure why the defense is objecting!
Before evidence is admissible in court, it has first to be relevant. The photograph is not relevant.
Really? You wouldn't have thought so with the way they PKR crowd have been baying.
Forget the trial for a minute. If relevant what does it prove? It proves that the DPM had lied to the people when he said he did not know the accused - but he is not even a witness in this trial?
Could that be made a basis to charge him with conspiracy to murder? In my opinion - insufficient to prove anything more than the fact that they were having a meal. Period.
Hmmm, legally speaking of course. But politically speaking, which ends justify the dirty poo flinging, trust a party virtually bankrupt of policies and (democratic) process to squeeze to the last drop of Mongolian blood to somehow extract Najib’s from the non relevant issue.
Then Raja commented on my hypothetical case of “a dying man revealing to a priest or monk that his murderer was, say, KTemoc (gulp)” and whether such an example could be akin to Burmaa’s claim of Altantuyaa showing her a photo?
A dying declaration is an exception to the common law rule against hearsay. You are right.
… explains my elation and reckless offer of champagne …
Altantuya never made a statement that could be said to be her ‘dying declaration’. The letters left by her referring to Razak is admissible only to prove her state of mind if that is in issue - and not the truth of contents e.g. Razak was trying to have her killed unless she stopped harassing him.
Good try PKR, and I do mean it, because as they say, fling enough poo and some will inevitably stick. And bugger the feelings of the family of the late Altantuyaa by unnecessarily (for them) indulging in sensational mud rucking, and bugger also ethical due process.
The reformasi way?
kzso : any good lawyers can advise on this 'hearsay’ and 'inadmissible' in court?
Monday, 9 July 2007
"I Don't Know," Says PM Of Minister Alleged To Be Corrupt
"I Don't Know," Says PM Of Minister Alleged To Be Corrupt
PENANG, July 8 (Bernama) -- Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said today he does not know who the senior cabinet minister is who has been accused of being corrupt in a memorandum submitted to the Prime Minister's Office.
The Prime Minister said he was informed of the memorandum handed to his office by Ezam Mohd Nor, chairman of the Movement for Democracy and Anti-Corruption (Gerak), and that he would study it.
"I was informed about the memorandum and I will study it," he told reporters after launching an environment awareness campaign.
Asked who was the minister alleged to be corrupt, Abdullah said: "I don't know".
On June 29, Ezam, who is also former Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) youth chief, submitted to Abdullah's office a document which Ezam claimed also contained allegations of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation involving the minister.
Copies of two police reports lodged against the minister were also submitted with the 632-page document, according to Ezam.
kzso : "I DON'T KNOW" that's the typical answer from our beloved ydp pm. We should understand that our ydp pm is just plain busy or waiting from kj or 4th floor advice and has no time to read anything (but still have time to play golf huh). We're lucky that he did not shift into his 'ELEGANCE SILENCE' mode or say to the reporters "I'M NOT INVOLVED" or the memorandum was passed to kj and now on kj's table or kj has read them and now using this infos for his political bullets and benefits.
PENANG, July 8 (Bernama) -- Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said today he does not know who the senior cabinet minister is who has been accused of being corrupt in a memorandum submitted to the Prime Minister's Office.
The Prime Minister said he was informed of the memorandum handed to his office by Ezam Mohd Nor, chairman of the Movement for Democracy and Anti-Corruption (Gerak), and that he would study it.
"I was informed about the memorandum and I will study it," he told reporters after launching an environment awareness campaign.
Asked who was the minister alleged to be corrupt, Abdullah said: "I don't know".
On June 29, Ezam, who is also former Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) youth chief, submitted to Abdullah's office a document which Ezam claimed also contained allegations of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation involving the minister.
Copies of two police reports lodged against the minister were also submitted with the 632-page document, according to Ezam.
kzso : "I DON'T KNOW" that's the typical answer from our beloved ydp pm. We should understand that our ydp pm is just plain busy or waiting from kj or 4th floor advice and has no time to read anything (but still have time to play golf huh). We're lucky that he did not shift into his 'ELEGANCE SILENCE' mode or say to the reporters "I'M NOT INVOLVED" or the memorandum was passed to kj and now on kj's table or kj has read them and now using this infos for his political bullets and benefits.
Wednesday, 4 July 2007
Mahathir Wins Legal Fight Against Anwar
Mahathir Wins Legal Fight Against Anwar
Wednesday July 4, 9:58 PM
Malaysian politician Anwar Ibrahim on Wednesday lost his bid to take former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad to court for calling him a homosexual, an accusation that landed Anwar in jail for six years.
A High Court judge ruled Anwar's defamation lawsuit was "unsustainable" because the court in 1999 dismissed a similar suit Anwar brought against Mahathir.
Mahathir first accused Anwar of homosexuality in 1998 when he fired Anwar as his deputy prime minister after Anwar challenged the prime minister's authority. Anwar was tried for corruption and sodomy and convicted after a trial he says was designed to curtail his political ascent.
He was sentenced to 15 years in prison but was released in September 2004 after the sodomy conviction was overturned.
Neither Mahathir nor Anwar were in court Wednesday.
Anwar's lawyer, Sankara Nair, described Anwar as "quite upset" by the judge's refusal to let the defamation lawsuit proceed. "The only way to know the truth is through a trial," the lawyer said.
Mahathir retired in 2003 after 22 years in office, handing over the reins to Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
Anwar filed a second defamation lawsuit against Mahathir in January 2006 after Mahathir insisted at a human rights seminar that he had a moral and social duty to fire Anwar because it was "unacceptable" to have a homosexual in his Cabinet.
Anwar's corruption conviction bars him from running in general elections or holding political office until April 2008. His People's Justice Party is now headed by his wife, Wan Azizah Wan Ismail.
Anwar was Mahathir's deputy for five years until their partnership cracked amid policy disputes during the Asian financial crisis.
Wednesday July 4, 9:58 PM
Malaysian politician Anwar Ibrahim on Wednesday lost his bid to take former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad to court for calling him a homosexual, an accusation that landed Anwar in jail for six years.
A High Court judge ruled Anwar's defamation lawsuit was "unsustainable" because the court in 1999 dismissed a similar suit Anwar brought against Mahathir.
Mahathir first accused Anwar of homosexuality in 1998 when he fired Anwar as his deputy prime minister after Anwar challenged the prime minister's authority. Anwar was tried for corruption and sodomy and convicted after a trial he says was designed to curtail his political ascent.
He was sentenced to 15 years in prison but was released in September 2004 after the sodomy conviction was overturned.
Neither Mahathir nor Anwar were in court Wednesday.
Anwar's lawyer, Sankara Nair, described Anwar as "quite upset" by the judge's refusal to let the defamation lawsuit proceed. "The only way to know the truth is through a trial," the lawyer said.
Mahathir retired in 2003 after 22 years in office, handing over the reins to Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
Anwar filed a second defamation lawsuit against Mahathir in January 2006 after Mahathir insisted at a human rights seminar that he had a moral and social duty to fire Anwar because it was "unacceptable" to have a homosexual in his Cabinet.
Anwar's corruption conviction bars him from running in general elections or holding political office until April 2008. His People's Justice Party is now headed by his wife, Wan Azizah Wan Ismail.
Anwar was Mahathir's deputy for five years until their partnership cracked amid policy disputes during the Asian financial crisis.
Malaysia's Anwar loses bid for showdown with ex-PM
Malaysia's Anwar loses bid for showdown with ex-PM
KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - Malaysia's de facto opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim, lost his bid on Wednesday for a legal showdown with his old enemy, former premier Mahathir Mohamad, whom he tried to sue for defamation.
A High Court judge allowed Mahathir to strike out a defamation libel suit over a comment that Anwar was a gay.
The decision, which Anwar's lawyer called "unexpected", was a setback for the former deputy premier in his quest to get even. Mahathir sacked Anwar from government in September 1998 in a chain of events that landed him in jail.
In his suit, Anwar said that his former mentor, speaking at a September 2005 news conference in Kuala Lumpur, had described him as a gay who could be a threat to people if he became prime minister.
Mahathir's lawyer said his client had a defence of justification and qualified privilege in describing his deeds as prime minister. He had asked for the case to be dropped.
"The application is accordingly allowed," High Court judge Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat said in a verbal judgment.
The suit follows a string of unsuccessful attempts by Anwar to bring Mahathir to court since being sacked as deputy premier and finance minister and serving six years in jail on what he has said were trumped up charges.
Anwar was freed in 2004 after the courts quashed a sodomy case against him. However, a conviction for corruption bars him from holding political office until April 2008.
Malaysians watched Wednesday's hearing keenly, since the country's judiciary has sided with Anwar in previous rulings.
In August 2005, Anwar won a judgment of $1.2 million against author Khalid Jafri over a book that accused him of fathering a child out of wedlock, among other things. DNA tests showed the child was not his.
The same month he won an apology from a former police chief for beating him in custody in 1998 and giving him a black eye.
Anwar's lawyer, Sankara Nair, vowed to appeal against Wednesday's decision, calling it "most disappointing, most puzzling and unexpected".
Mahathir retired in 2003 after 22 years as premier and handed power to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who had replaced Anwar as number two.
KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - Malaysia's de facto opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim, lost his bid on Wednesday for a legal showdown with his old enemy, former premier Mahathir Mohamad, whom he tried to sue for defamation.
A High Court judge allowed Mahathir to strike out a defamation libel suit over a comment that Anwar was a gay.
The decision, which Anwar's lawyer called "unexpected", was a setback for the former deputy premier in his quest to get even. Mahathir sacked Anwar from government in September 1998 in a chain of events that landed him in jail.
In his suit, Anwar said that his former mentor, speaking at a September 2005 news conference in Kuala Lumpur, had described him as a gay who could be a threat to people if he became prime minister.
Mahathir's lawyer said his client had a defence of justification and qualified privilege in describing his deeds as prime minister. He had asked for the case to be dropped.
"The application is accordingly allowed," High Court judge Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat said in a verbal judgment.
The suit follows a string of unsuccessful attempts by Anwar to bring Mahathir to court since being sacked as deputy premier and finance minister and serving six years in jail on what he has said were trumped up charges.
Anwar was freed in 2004 after the courts quashed a sodomy case against him. However, a conviction for corruption bars him from holding political office until April 2008.
Malaysians watched Wednesday's hearing keenly, since the country's judiciary has sided with Anwar in previous rulings.
In August 2005, Anwar won a judgment of $1.2 million against author Khalid Jafri over a book that accused him of fathering a child out of wedlock, among other things. DNA tests showed the child was not his.
The same month he won an apology from a former police chief for beating him in custody in 1998 and giving him a black eye.
Anwar's lawyer, Sankara Nair, vowed to appeal against Wednesday's decision, calling it "most disappointing, most puzzling and unexpected".
Mahathir retired in 2003 after 22 years as premier and handed power to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who had replaced Anwar as number two.
Malaysian court throws out Anwar gay slur suit against Mahathir
Malaysian court throws out Anwar gay slur suit against Mahathir
Photo: AFP
KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) - A Malaysian judge on Wednesday threw out a lawsuit filed by former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim after the country's retired leader Mahathir Mohamad called him gay.
Anwar lodged the defamation suit in January last year after Mahathir said he could not allow his former deputy to become prime minister because he was a homosexual.
Mahathir's lawyers in January applied to strike out the suit, filing a 48-page affidavit in which Mahathir accused Anwar of aspiring to become prime minister and using the suit to "rehabilitate himself for high office."
"The plaintiff's action is unsustainable based on background evidence... and the defendant's application (Mahathir) to strike out is therefore allowed with cost," said High Court judge Tengku Maimon Tuan Mat.
Neither Mahathir nor Anwar was present in court.
Anwar's lawyer said the former deputy prime minister would appeal.
"I have informed Anwar Ibrahim of the decision and he is indeed quite upset and he has instructed that we file an appeal as we are dissatisfied with the decision," lawyer Sankara Nair told reporters.
Anwar was heir apparent to Mahathir until his sacking in 1988 after sodomy and corruption charges that landed him in jail for six years. The sodomy conviction was later overturned but the corruption verdict stands, barring Anwar from standing for public office until April 2008.
"I cannot have a person who is like that in my cabinet who may succeed and become the prime minister. Imagine having a gay prime minister. Nobody would be safe," Mahathir told reporters in September 2005.
The lawsuit said Mahathir's "falsely and maliciously" made comments were widely reported by the media, causing "irreparable damage" to Anwar's reputation.
Sankara said the latest court decision made Anwar's attempt to clear his name difficult, but he was hoping for justice at the Court of Appeal.
"This is defamation and in defamation the only way to know the truth is through a trial," he said.
"I think Anwar is entitled to a full trial at least. And I think if it is dismissed thereafter there will be less disappointment."
Human rights groups have said allegations Anwar conducted a sexual relationship with his driver, then abused his power to conceal it, were trumped up to prevent him from challenging Mahathir, whose 22-year rule ended when he retired in October 2003.
Photo: AFP
KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) - A Malaysian judge on Wednesday threw out a lawsuit filed by former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim after the country's retired leader Mahathir Mohamad called him gay.
Anwar lodged the defamation suit in January last year after Mahathir said he could not allow his former deputy to become prime minister because he was a homosexual.
Mahathir's lawyers in January applied to strike out the suit, filing a 48-page affidavit in which Mahathir accused Anwar of aspiring to become prime minister and using the suit to "rehabilitate himself for high office."
"The plaintiff's action is unsustainable based on background evidence... and the defendant's application (Mahathir) to strike out is therefore allowed with cost," said High Court judge Tengku Maimon Tuan Mat.
Neither Mahathir nor Anwar was present in court.
Anwar's lawyer said the former deputy prime minister would appeal.
"I have informed Anwar Ibrahim of the decision and he is indeed quite upset and he has instructed that we file an appeal as we are dissatisfied with the decision," lawyer Sankara Nair told reporters.
Anwar was heir apparent to Mahathir until his sacking in 1988 after sodomy and corruption charges that landed him in jail for six years. The sodomy conviction was later overturned but the corruption verdict stands, barring Anwar from standing for public office until April 2008.
"I cannot have a person who is like that in my cabinet who may succeed and become the prime minister. Imagine having a gay prime minister. Nobody would be safe," Mahathir told reporters in September 2005.
The lawsuit said Mahathir's "falsely and maliciously" made comments were widely reported by the media, causing "irreparable damage" to Anwar's reputation.
Sankara said the latest court decision made Anwar's attempt to clear his name difficult, but he was hoping for justice at the Court of Appeal.
"This is defamation and in defamation the only way to know the truth is through a trial," he said.
"I think Anwar is entitled to a full trial at least. And I think if it is dismissed thereafter there will be less disappointment."
Human rights groups have said allegations Anwar conducted a sexual relationship with his driver, then abused his power to conceal it, were trumped up to prevent him from challenging Mahathir, whose 22-year rule ended when he retired in October 2003.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)