Then-prime apportion Dr Mahathir Mohamed did not utter anything factious during a debates for a 1993 inherent amendments, though was in actuality safeguarding a stately institution, argued DPP Noorin Badaruddin in justice today.
"The people could have done something which would imperil a inherent monarch.
"Before a people lose respect (to a rulers), he founded a Special Court which could hold them accountable in their personal capacity.
"Mahathir did not theme a inherent monarch, though he shielded it," she said.
She was objecting Bukit Gelugor MP Karpal Singh's (right) bid to summons a former prime apportion as well as several others to crop up as witnesses during hissedition trial, upon a grounds which they have been not material witnesses.
At a time, several scandals involving a kingship generally a 1992 'Gomez Incident' had led to a government to rectify a law, effectively stripping a kingship of their immunity from prosecution.
In a incident upon November 1992, Johor hockey manager Douglas Gomez was summoned to a Johor palace, where a late Sultan Mahmud Iskandar allegedly assaulted him for criticising a sultan's orders to repel his hockey group from a tournament.
Karpal has contende! d which t he parliamentary debates during a time were some-more factious than what he had supposedly said.
"The people could have done something which would imperil a inherent monarch.
"Before a people lose respect (to a rulers), he founded a Special Court which could hold them accountable in their personal capacity.
"Mahathir did not theme a inherent monarch, though he shielded it," she said.
She was objecting Bukit Gelugor MP Karpal Singh's (right) bid to summons a former prime apportion as well as several others to crop up as witnesses during hissedition trial, upon a grounds which they have been not material witnesses.At a time, several scandals involving a kingship generally a 1992 'Gomez Incident' had led to a government to rectify a law, effectively stripping a kingship of their immunity from prosecution.
In a incident upon November 1992, Johor hockey manager Douglas Gomez was summoned to a Johor palace, where a late Sultan Mahmud Iskandar allegedly assaulted him for criticising a sultan's orders to repel his hockey group from a tournament.
Karpal has contende! d which t he parliamentary debates during a time were some-more factious than what he had supposedly said.
Since no a single was charged as a result, it would be astray as well as unconstitutional to assign him, he had argued when he applied for his charges to bestruck out.
He is charged underneath Section 4(1)(b) of a Sedition Act for allegedly saying during a press conference upon Feb 6, 2009 which legal action could be taken opposite a Perak sultan for his role in a 2008 Perak inherent crisis.
If convicted, Karpal could be jailed for up to three years or fined up to RM5,000, or both.
Karpal: Witnesses have been vital
Claiming which a attorney-general's prosecutorial option had not been exercised properly, Karpal wishes to summons then attorney-general Abu Talib Othman, a stream attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail and, noting which a cabinet acts upon a attorney-general's legal advice, Mahathir to support his application.
However, Noorin argued which their testimonies would not be useful, as well as to summons them would be an abuse of justice processes.
"All these witnesses have been not relevant during all as well as would not be beneficial in a defence," she said, adding which Karpal should be job witnesses who could raise in accord with doubt upon this charge.
She additionally argued which even if what was pronounced during a 1993 parliamentary debates were seditious, it is irrelevant to Karpal's case.
In addition, underneath Article 145 of a sovereign constitution, she pronounced a attorney-general has option upon whom to prosecute as well as it is not for a justice to theme his discretion.
Even a constitution's Article 8 sustenance for equivalence prior to a law is theme to this, Noorin argued.
"Therefore it is transparent which a AG's (attorney-general) option is absolute as well as cannot be questioned in court... The justice should not allow it," she said.
However, Karpal confirmed which a witnesses have been critical to his evidence which it is unconstitutional underneath Article 8 to selectively prosecute him, as well as which it is Article 145 which is theme ! to Artic le 8, not a other way around.
Otherwise, a veteran lawyer noted, "it would be disturbing".
Justice Azman Abdullah fixed subsequent Thursday for a decision upon either to summons a witnesses.
Read More @ Source More Barisan Nasional (BN) | Pakatan Rakyat (PR) | Sociopolitics Plus |
Courtesy of Bonology.com Politically Incorrect Buzz & Buzz
No comments:
Post a Comment