Kim Quek describes two cases:
'Many an election petition has been thrown out without its case being even heard - not due to lack of evidence of offence, but due to prevalent pro-BN stance of judges.
A classic example is Judge Azahar Mohamed's judgment to strike off Zaid Ibrahim's (right) (then in PKR) election petition to annul the by-election for the Hulu Selangor parliamentary constituency in 2010.
In that by-election, Prime Minister Najib Razak (left) publicly offered on polling eve to pay RM3 million cash to the Chinese electorate in Rasa the very next day after polling (for building a Chinese primary school), on condition that BN's candidate Kamalanathan won the election.
The video clip of this sensational bribery offer, uploaded in YouTube, went immediately viral, and was watched by vast audiences in Malaysia and around the world. As it turned out, BN's candidate won, and the RM3 million cash was paid the next day.
Such daring attempt to buy an election would have been deemed a clear-cut and foregone case of election bribery under any jurisdiction, as the ingredients of bribery are present, and the evidence irrefutable, being watched instantly by the whole wide world.
Not only that, for such brazen corrupt act, Najib should also have been charged and convicted for corruption.
But, in the law books of Judge Azahar, there was no case, and Zaid's application was struck off.
Reasons? Zaid didn't identify the recipients of the alleged bribe, didn't prove Najib's act had altered the election result, and didn't provide a full text or transcript of Najib's speech.
But, wasn't Azahar asking for the moon, when he demanded concrete evidence of voters changing their voting preference, following Najib's offer?
What kind of evidence did he have in mind? Did he expect voter A to come to the court and swear that he wanted to vote for Zaid, but due to Najib's offer, he changed his mind and voted for Kamalanathan ?
If voter A really did that, would Azahar have accepted the evidence as truthful? If not, what other evidence did Azahar have in mind before he would agree that pervasive offer of inducement had in fact swayed the decisions of voters? The absurdity of Azahar's demand is self-evident.'
'Political bias of judiciary
Azahar is only one of many such judges who have struck off legitimate election petitions at the preliminary stage, and this is borne out by former Judge Muhammad Kamil Awang, who in his famous judgment annulling the Likas election in 2001, disclosed that then Chief Justice Eusoff Chin called him by phone to dismiss the election petition without hearing it, to which, Muhammad refused to comply.
Muhammad further revealed that other judges had also called him for advice regarding similar requests from Eusoff Chin.
Presumably, these judges had yielded to the pressure, thus explaining the phenomena of rampant striking out of election petitions.
The courageous and honourable Justice Muhammad Kamil Awang was, of course, an exception to the rule.
But that does not mean that we have no judge of integrity among the fraternity, as from time to time, we continue to see judges risk courting the displeasure of the ruling power to deliver judgment strictly according to law.
In this connection, we take heart from Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria who, in anticipation of a rush of election petitions following the controversial GE 13, has recently urged judges to "hear the cases with an open mind and not bow to pressure from any quarters".'
More:
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/232993
Link
'Many an election petition has been thrown out without its case being even heard - not due to lack of evidence of offence, but due to prevalent pro-BN stance of judges.
A classic example is Judge Azahar Mohamed's judgment to strike off Zaid Ibrahim's (right) (then in PKR) election petition to annul the by-election for the Hulu Selangor parliamentary constituency in 2010.
In that by-election, Prime Minister Najib Razak (left) publicly offered on polling eve to pay RM3 million cash to the Chinese electorate in Rasa the very next day after polling (for building a Chinese primary school), on condition that BN's candidate Kamalanathan won the election.
The video clip of this sensational bribery offer, uploaded in YouTube, went immediately viral, and was watched by vast audiences in Malaysia and around the world. As it turned out, BN's candidate won, and the RM3 million cash was paid the next day.
Such daring attempt to buy an election would have been deemed a clear-cut and foregone case of election bribery under any jurisdiction, as the ingredients of bribery are present, and the evidence irrefutable, being watched instantly by the whole wide world.
Not only that, for such brazen corrupt act, Najib should also have been charged and convicted for corruption.
But, in the law books of Judge Azahar, there was no case, and Zaid's application was struck off.
Reasons? Zaid didn't identify the recipients of the alleged bribe, didn't prove Najib's act had altered the election result, and didn't provide a full text or transcript of Najib's speech.
But, wasn't Azahar asking for the moon, when he demanded concrete evidence of voters changing their voting preference, following Najib's offer?
What kind of evidence did he have in mind? Did he expect voter A to come to the court and swear that he wanted to vote for Zaid, but due to Najib's offer, he changed his mind and voted for Kamalanathan ?
If voter A really did that, would Azahar have accepted the evidence as truthful? If not, what other evidence did Azahar have in mind before he would agree that pervasive offer of inducement had in fact swayed the decisions of voters? The absurdity of Azahar's demand is self-evident.'
'Political bias of judiciary
Azahar is only one of many such judges who have struck off legitimate election petitions at the preliminary stage, and this is borne out by former Judge Muhammad Kamil Awang, who in his famous judgment annulling the Likas election in 2001, disclosed that then Chief Justice Eusoff Chin called him by phone to dismiss the election petition without hearing it, to which, Muhammad refused to comply.
Muhammad further revealed that other judges had also called him for advice regarding similar requests from Eusoff Chin.
Presumably, these judges had yielded to the pressure, thus explaining the phenomena of rampant striking out of election petitions.
The courageous and honourable Justice Muhammad Kamil Awang was, of course, an exception to the rule.
But that does not mean that we have no judge of integrity among the fraternity, as from time to time, we continue to see judges risk courting the displeasure of the ruling power to deliver judgment strictly according to law.
In this connection, we take heart from Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria who, in anticipation of a rush of election petitions following the controversial GE 13, has recently urged judges to "hear the cases with an open mind and not bow to pressure from any quarters".'
More:
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/232993
No comments:
Post a Comment