Charging N Surendran under the Sedition Act has set an arbitrary and unjust precedent, warned Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) today.
Its legal/campaign coordinator Michelle Yesudas said it would allow courts to convict lawyers for legal views that conflict the political stance of the government, therefore stifling freedom of speech.
Surendran is the lawyer for opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in his Sodomy II case. He is also the MP for Padang Serai and PKR vice-president.
Yesudas said Surendran's statement, for which he was charged, was an analysis of a politically charged case, a critique of the legal system and the deep flaws in the Court of Appeal's findings.
"Criticising judgments and listing the flaws in judicial reasoning are all part and parcel of legal education and legal practice all over the world," she added.
She also claimed that the attorney-general "repeatedly abused" the Sedition Act to intimidate opposition politicians and activists.
"The Najib administration arrogantly holds the record for most absurd sedition charges issued," she said, calling for the Act to be abolished with immediate effect.
Gobind: AG exerting pressure
Meanwhile, DAP MP Gobind Singh Deo, who is also a lawyer, said the charged amounted to exerting pressure on Surendran and Anwar's defence team.
"The AG is in essence taking action against Surendren for stating his views of a judgment of the Court of Appeal, which views may well form the basis of the defence submissions in a pending appeal to the Federal Court.
"The AG is the respondent in that appeal. He should use that forum to answer all criticisms and arguments raised by the defence of and concerning the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
"He cannot and must not be allowed to exert any form of pressure nor intimidate Surendren or Anwar’s defence team in any way before the appeal especially by prosecuting them for expressing their views in the matter," he added.
Such a move, Gobind argued, would be an utter abuse of process and could well amount to contempt of court.
He also argued that the case sets a bad precedent, especially for the criminal bar, in that lawyers would be far less willing to speak their minds and defend their clients to the best of their ability for fear of being prosecuted.
"This is a matter of serious public concern. The AG is not beyond the law.
"No doubt, he has powers to institute prosecutions but these powers cannot and must not be exercised unlawfully," he added.
Its legal/campaign coordinator Michelle Yesudas said it would allow courts to convict lawyers for legal views that conflict the political stance of the government, therefore stifling freedom of speech.
Surendran is the lawyer for opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in his Sodomy II case. He is also the MP for Padang Serai and PKR vice-president.
Yesudas said Surendran's statement, for which he was charged, was an analysis of a politically charged case, a critique of the legal system and the deep flaws in the Court of Appeal's findings."Criticising judgments and listing the flaws in judicial reasoning are all part and parcel of legal education and legal practice all over the world," she added.
She also claimed that the attorney-general "repeatedly abused" the Sedition Act to intimidate opposition politicians and activists.
"The Najib administration arrogantly holds the record for most absurd sedition charges issued," she said, calling for the Act to be abolished with immediate effect.
Gobind: AG exerting pressure
Meanwhile, DAP MP Gobind Singh Deo, who is also a lawyer, said the charged amounted to exerting pressure on Surendran and Anwar's defence team.
"The AG is in essence taking action against Surendren for stating his views of a judgment of the Court of Appeal, which views may well form the basis of the defence submissions in a pending appeal to the Federal Court.
"The AG is the respondent in that appeal. He should use that forum to answer all criticisms and arguments raised by the defence of and concerning the judgment of the Court of Appeal."He cannot and must not be allowed to exert any form of pressure nor intimidate Surendren or Anwar’s defence team in any way before the appeal especially by prosecuting them for expressing their views in the matter," he added.
Such a move, Gobind argued, would be an utter abuse of process and could well amount to contempt of court.
He also argued that the case sets a bad precedent, especially for the criminal bar, in that lawyers would be far less willing to speak their minds and defend their clients to the best of their ability for fear of being prosecuted.
"This is a matter of serious public concern. The AG is not beyond the law.
"No doubt, he has powers to institute prosecutions but these powers cannot and must not be exercised unlawfully," he added.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.