What if the Agong says he was advised by the legal advisers that if Pakatan Rakyat does get enough seats from the expected crossovers then it is his duty as the Agong to swear in the new government and that doing otherwise would be illegal and a violation of the constitution?
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
I made an allegation. That allegation was made formally. It was made by way of a Statutory Declaration -- a copy that was sent via an official letter through my lawyer to the prosecutors in the Altantuya murder trial.
Member of Parliament Zahrain Hashim made an allegation. That allegation was made formally. It was made by way of a statement in Parliament.
Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim made an allegation. That allegation was made formally. It was made by way of a statement in Parliament.
My Statutory Declaration was actually not even an allegation. It was my testimony that I had been told something by a third party, which for all intents and purposes was hearsay at best. I did not allege anything. I related what someone else had alleged and the purpose of my Statutory Declaration was to urge the authorities to investigate this allegation by that third party, which was told to me.
Zahrain’s allegation was also hearsay of sorts. He related what he alleges was told to him by Anwar. The Agong or the military did not personally tell Zahrain anything, so Zahrain cannot testify whether what Anwar said is true or false. Zahrain alleges that this is what the Agong and the military were supposed to have told Anwar and which Anwar in turn told him.
Anwar’s allegation, however, is not too clear. Was his allegation regarding APCO based on what he had been told, documents he had seen, conversation he had with the people from APCO, or whatever? Nevertheless, can Anwar prove what he alleged? And what proof can he offer to support his allegation?
In my case, action was taken against me for what I signed in that Statutory Declaration. Action was not taken against the third person who made that allegation. The fact remains that this is not my allegation but an allegation by a third party, which I in turn related. Am I making an allegation or am I relating something said by a third party, which would be classified as hearsay and therefore not admissible in a court of law?
In Zahrain’s case, he too related something told to him by a third party, like what I did. However, in Zahrain’s case, action was not taken against him, like what they did to me. Instead, action is going to be taken against that third party who told him that bit of information, opposite to what they did to me.
In Anwar’s case, action is also going to be taken against him without allowing him the opportunity to support what he alleged and prove what he said. He is assumed to have lied without establishing whether this is so. The innocent until proven guilty clause is not being applied in this particular incident. He is guilty of lying, period.
There is a difference between prosecution and persecution. As far as the opposition or anti-government elements are concerned, they are subjected to persecution under the guise of prosecution. With regards to the pro-government elements, they are exempted from prosecution. This is called selective prosecution.
When the court acquitted Razak Baginda of the charge of murder, the Attorney-General quickly made a statement saying that they will not be appealing the court’s verdict. When the court declared my Internal Security Act detention illegal and freed me at almost the same time, the Attorney-General quickly appealed the court’s verdict.
The fact that most people the world over are of the opinion that the Altantuya murder trial was badly handled and that there was a gross miscarriage of justice and that the grounds for Razak’s acquittal is flawed because the judge relied on Razak’s Affidavit which was never admitted into evidence in the trial appears to have escaped the Attorney-General. They still refuse to appeal the verdict.
The fact that the judge clearly outlined in what way my detention was illegal and that there is really no way they can dispute those grounds also appears to have escaped the Attorney-General. They still insist on appealing the verdict.
Hey, I am no lawyer. But even if I can see through all this and argue the case, what more those schooled in matters of law? I am a layman in matters of law. But you really do not need to go to law school to see that this is no prosecution but persecution and also see that there are two systems being applied, one for the opposition supporters and another for the pro-government supporters.
Okay, so they want to charge Anwar. Then what? Once they indict Anwar for sedition, as they say that might happen, then Anwar will be put on trial. Then Zahrain will be put on the stand to testify as to what Anwar told him. Then two things can happen here.
First scenario: Anwar can tell the court he did not tell Zahrain what he (Zahrain) said he (Anwar) told him (Zahrain). So it is now Zahrain’s word against Anwar’s. So whose word will the court take? Anwar’s or Zahrain’s? How will the court know who is telling the truth? Does Zahrain have documents or recordings to prove his case? If not then how will the court know that Zahrain is telling the truth and that Anwar is the one who is lying?
Second scenario: Anwar can tell the court he did tell Zahrain what he (Zahrain) said he (Anwar) told him (Zahrain). What next? Anwar tells the court about his meeting with the Agong and certain key members of the military. Is the court now going to subpoena the Agong to testify as to whether Anwar lied and in fact no such conversation existed between His Majesty and Anwar?
Third scenario: Anwar tells the court he did tell Zahrain what he (Zahrain) said he (Anwar) told him (Zahrain). Anwar then reveals to the court that he did in fact talk to the Agong and that the Agong replied if 30 Barisan Nasional Members of Parliament do cross over and if Pakatan Rakyat does control the majority in Parliament then, according to the Constitution, the Agong is compelled to swear in the new government like what the Sultan of Perak did in Perak (which is a precedence already set by the Rulers).
Anwar then tells the court that the Agong admitted that he (the Agong) cannot legally refuse to hand over power to Pakatan Rakyat if Pakatan Rakyat has more seat in Parliament compared to Barisan Nasional. To deny Pakatan Rakyat its right to form the new government would violate the Constitution and the Agong said he would never support anything unconstitutional.
Say this is what Anwar tells the court. Then what? Will the court then say Anwar is telling the truth and in fact Zahrain is also telling the truth. So, since both Anwar and Zahrain are telling the truth where do they go from there? Or will they try to prove that Anwar lied by summoning the Agong to court in the hope that the Agong will deny he spoke to Anwar and that Anwar lied about everything he told the court?
But what will happen in the event they do summon the Agong to court and the Agong confirms what Anwar said word for word? What if the Agong adds that he asked his legal advisers to study the Constitution and the law carefully? And what if the Agong then says he was advised by the legal advisers that if Pakatan Rakyat does get enough seats from the expected crossovers then it is his duty as the Agong to swear in the new government and that doing otherwise would be illegal and a violation of the constitution? And what if the Agong also says that his legal advisers reminded him about what happened in Perak as a case in point?
So, what then? What are they going to do next? Yes, the government may be playing with fire. The Agong has done nothing wrong if he did in fact speak to Anwar. There is no law that forbids the opposition leader from talking to the Agong. And there is no law that forbids the Agong from advising Anwar on when it is legal and when it is illegal for the Agong to swear in a new government. There is also no law that forbids the Agong from cautioning Anwar that a new government can be sworn in only under certain circumstances and if these conditions are met then there is nothing within the powers of the Agong to block the new government from being formed.
Yes, please charge Anwar. I just can’t wait to see the fun.
I just love to see the government walk into its own traps that it set up to trap the opposition. And the so-called trap that Zahrain set up to trap Anwar is going to trap the government instead.
No comments:
Post a Comment