Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

©New Straits Times (Used by permission)
by V. Anbalagan

KUALA LUMPUR, MON: Should cases of civil servants charged with criminal offences be given preferential treatment over others?

This is the hot topic among lawyers after the Shah Alam High Court on March 10 decided to bring forward the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial by nine months.

Two policemen are charged with the murder of the 28- year-old Mongolian woman while a political analyst is charged with abetting the cops.

The court has fixed hearing from June 4 for 25 days and if need be, trial dates will be extended until the completion of the case. Earlier it was fixed for March 10 next year.

Trial judge Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin had said the case was brought forward as the policemen were civil servants and that a 2004 Chief Justice practice direction allowed the court to give such cases priority over others.

Criminal lawyers interviewed differed in their views.

Lawyer Gurbachan Singh said Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim had a point in issuing the direction because the salaries of government servants were paid from public taxes.

A civil servant, who is charged with a criminal offence, will be interdicted once charged, that is, he will not be allowed to come to office but will receive half pay.

"He will be drawing monthly income by doing nothing," he said, adding that this was a drain on government revenue.

Gurbachan said, usually a criminal case would take between five and six years to conclude, the civil servant could also work elsewhere and the government never asks for a refund if the court convicted the person.

"But if he wins, he returns to work, gets arrears of the half-salary and other benefits due to him."

Bar Council Criminal Practice Committee immediate past chairman Datuk V. Sithambaram said that not only the personal integrity of the civil servant was brought into question but also the department he served when charged with a criminal offence.

"The early disposal will result in relieving the battered image of the department concerned," he said.

Lawyer M. Manoharan said there should be no discrimination between civil servants and others when the offence carried the death penalty.

Civil servants rarely faced murder and dadah trafficking charges but most were for criminal breach of trust and corruption, he said.

"It should be first-come, first-served basis and it is certainly not right to bring forward cases that involve public servants," he said, adding that those charged with capital offence were denied bail and would have to languish in prison.

It would be stressful for such accused persons starring at the death penalty and it caused a lot of anxiety to family members, he added.

Manoharan said the money saved under this exercise (of giving priority to civil servants) was negligible compared with the amount of wastage and abuse of public funds.

But he did not mind if cases of civil servants charged with CBT and graft were brought forward as most of them would have been free on bail pending the conclusion of their cases.

Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin urged the judiciary to seriously consider the effect of the practice direction.

Kamarul said if the practice direction was placed in the light of the equality principle before the law, which was constitutionally protected, the former must fall.

He said only public interest cases should be accorded preference where the issues to be decided by the court would have bearing on the people.

Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri, 35, and corporal Sirul Azhar Omar, 30, were charged with murdering Altantuya between Oct 19 and 20, last year.

Abdul Razak Baginda, 46, was charged with abetting the policemen and the three face the death penalty if convicted.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed