The Bar Council views with deep concern the events that have unfolded in the past seven months and during the trial of the former deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim which has resulted in his conviction on 14th April 1999 and sentence of 6 years on each of the four amended charges to run concurrently from the date of conviction without taking into account the seven months remand since his arrest.
The Bar Council subscribes to the principle of the Rule of Law and it is mindful of the fact that there are provisions enabling an accused person who is dissatisfied with the decision of the court of first instance to appeal to the higher court. This is a matter entirely between the accused and his Legal Advisors.
The Bar Council notes the concerns voiced by numerous members of the Bar, members of the public and various organisations. This whole episode has caused grave disquiet in the administration of justice in our country.
The manner of arrest of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, his subsequent assault while in police custody, the lack of immediate medical treatment, the finding of the Royal Commission of Inquiry that the then Inspector–General of Police was responsible for assaulting Dato Seri Anwar and the Royal Commission's finding of fact that a normal detention was converted to an ISA detention so as not to expose him to public view are serious matters of profound concern to the citizenry.
Of public concern is how a case of such importance and public interest involving the former Deputy Prime Minister, the highest public officer to have ever been tried in Malaysia, was heard by a junior High Court judge, elevated just months before and transferred to the Criminal Division of the Kuala Lumpur High Court a mere few weeks before the trial. This was an unprecedented step when one compares with two previous cases of senior politicians who held high offices in Government who had been tried by two very senior judges.
The unusual manner in which the trial itself was conducted, for example, the refusal of bail; the expunging of evidence given on oath; preventing the accused from raising every possible and conceivable defence and limiting him to particular defences; compelling the defence to state beforehand what evidence the defence sought to adduce through various witnesses; disallowing witnesses from testifying and making rulings as to their relevancy without first hearing their testimony; citing and threatening defence lawyers with contempt proceedings including sentencing a defence lawyer to three months imprisonment for contempt while in the exercise of their legal duties, raise questions impinging on the administration of justice.
The Bar Council also notes with concern the use of intemperate language by the judge in the course of the trial.
The Bar Council was deprived of holding a watching brief during the trial and in the subsequent applications and was therefore unable to perform and fulfil its statutory duties in the interest of justice under the Legal Profession Act, 1976.
The Bar Council further notes that this trial, which according to law must be held in public was not at all times, public, as there were repeated prohibitions on the publication of crucial evidence given in open court in various instances. Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.
Several questions including that of substantive law, practice and procedure, and the administration of justice have been brought to the fore which need to be addressed in the context of fundamental rights and liberties guaranteed in the Constitution.
Dated: 17th April 1999
R. R. Chelvarajah
Chairman,
Bar Council.
Change Password
Search the site
Member Login
The trial of the former deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim
17 Apr 1999 12:00 am