YOURSAY ‘The sole purpose of nailing Anwar is because he was a political threat.’
Shafee calls Anwar's jailing a legal conspiracy
Longyan Ren: So it's now as clear as daylight that the case against Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim is indeed a political persecution.
How else can you explain the existence of such a conspiracy or collusion, albeit legal, to only get Anwar convicted but not Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.
Saiful was equally guilty of the same consensual act, he was not prosecuted but instead turned state witness for the sole purpose of nailing Anwar because Anwar was a political threat to the BN government.
What the state did was legal but morally reprehensible.
Commentable: Some people say Umno lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah is basking in his own glory but he seems desperate now, like a drowning man clutching at straws.
So desperate that he's spinning the word “conspiracy”. A good prosecutor who has done a proper day's work need not go through all this spinning and justifying, for the judges have already decided.
It is unbecoming of him to lash out at Anwar for testifying from the dock during the trial just because he cannot cross-examine Anwar.
But as a learned lawyer, he fails to realise that testifying from the dock is one of three rights given to an accused by law - that there can be no adverse inference if he chooses to do so.
Shafee shouldn't sensationalise this by saying “Anwar is a coward and had something to hide”. It’s better for Shafee to respond to former US ambassador to Malaysia John Malott's points, that is if he's not a coward.
Kim Quek: Shafee’s childish, unethical and unprofessional tirade against Anwar, after the latter was cast into prison, is a disgrace to the legal profession.
Further, he has through such immature conduct, inadvertently exposed himself as a henchman of the Umno juggernaut, camouflaging as public prosecutor.
That the nation’s highest courts have allowed him to steamroll over them with half-truths and untruths is a terrible indictment on the wretched state of the Malaysian judiciary.
Shafee deserves every bit the public contempt he has incurred through his shameful conduct.
Gaji Buta: All is fair in love and war. The question is, was the case watertight enough to prove beyond any doubt that the act took place?
Most people think not, but the five judges determined it was. This is where the issue lies.
Hypothetically, it would have been cleaner if Saiful had let himself be sodomised once more, and make the report with fresh sperm dripping from his butt, instead of holding it for a few days, raising doubts.
Capo: Shafee, what were you, Najib and Saiful doing in the then DPM's house? Having an orgy of sodomy fabrication?
Debater: It is really something wrong with the judiciary to allow a lawyer to admit conspiracy is right.
In the eyes of the law, conspiracy in order to make a conviction, whether the accuse is guilty or not, is itself illegal. "Pakat", such as planting evidence or conspire with witnesses, is a crime.
Caripasal: A political conspiracy indeed, but the prosecutor still requires indisputable evidence in the court. If Anwar had sodomised Saiful but the prosecutor failed to present indisputable evidence, then he is innocent in the rule of law.
Remember the OJ Simpson murder case. In this case, the evidence presented by the prosecution failed to proof that the sodomy had taken place.
The judges found Anwar guilty, simply because of the pressure from their political masters, and not based on scientific evidence. To find someone guilty, without scientific evidence, is very dangerous.
Shafee, why didn’t you say that it is a political prosecution in court? You, in fact, denied it.
Based on Shafee's statement (as a prosecutor), he should be charged perhaps for giving false statement in court, and Anwar should file for judicial review
Gggg: Shafee should not be seen getting personal about Anwar's case. He was the prosecution officer and he should not be seen taking sides but to lay the facts before the court to decide.
Anonymous_1423767573: Why the need to keep repeating yourself and attacking someone who is already behind bars due to a conspiracy you have now justified and whose script you helped write and argued in court?
Methinks you protest too loud - it’s completely unethical and un-lawyerly behaviour. But then, I'm sure you are well-paid for your 'sacrifice'.
Iiiizzzziiii: Any credibility and integrity of Shafee has been completely destroyed in the Paul Phua case in the United States by roping in the home minister to write a letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) pleading for his safe return to Malaysia.
When a lawyer goes to such extend to defend a known crook internationally, based on what moral authority he can justify the action against Anwar?
Negarawan: Shafee and his Umno masters can call Anwar's jailing anything they want as they can act with total impunity.
However, other foreign countries with a transparent, clean, and fair judiciary and legal system call it a trumped-up charge. Based on merit and truth, defence lawyer Gopal Sri Ram won the case hands down. -Mkini
Shafee calls Anwar's jailing a legal conspiracy
Longyan Ren: So it's now as clear as daylight that the case against Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim is indeed a political persecution.How else can you explain the existence of such a conspiracy or collusion, albeit legal, to only get Anwar convicted but not Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.
Saiful was equally guilty of the same consensual act, he was not prosecuted but instead turned state witness for the sole purpose of nailing Anwar because Anwar was a political threat to the BN government.
What the state did was legal but morally reprehensible.
Commentable: Some people say Umno lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah is basking in his own glory but he seems desperate now, like a drowning man clutching at straws.
So desperate that he's spinning the word “conspiracy”. A good prosecutor who has done a proper day's work need not go through all this spinning and justifying, for the judges have already decided.
It is unbecoming of him to lash out at Anwar for testifying from the dock during the trial just because he cannot cross-examine Anwar.
But as a learned lawyer, he fails to realise that testifying from the dock is one of three rights given to an accused by law - that there can be no adverse inference if he chooses to do so.
Shafee shouldn't sensationalise this by saying “Anwar is a coward and had something to hide”. It’s better for Shafee to respond to former US ambassador to Malaysia John Malott's points, that is if he's not a coward.
Kim Quek: Shafee’s childish, unethical and unprofessional tirade against Anwar, after the latter was cast into prison, is a disgrace to the legal profession.
Further, he has through such immature conduct, inadvertently exposed himself as a henchman of the Umno juggernaut, camouflaging as public prosecutor.
That the nation’s highest courts have allowed him to steamroll over them with half-truths and untruths is a terrible indictment on the wretched state of the Malaysian judiciary.
Shafee deserves every bit the public contempt he has incurred through his shameful conduct.
Gaji Buta: All is fair in love and war. The question is, was the case watertight enough to prove beyond any doubt that the act took place?
Most people think not, but the five judges determined it was. This is where the issue lies.
Hypothetically, it would have been cleaner if Saiful had let himself be sodomised once more, and make the report with fresh sperm dripping from his butt, instead of holding it for a few days, raising doubts.
Capo: Shafee, what were you, Najib and Saiful doing in the then DPM's house? Having an orgy of sodomy fabrication?
Debater: It is really something wrong with the judiciary to allow a lawyer to admit conspiracy is right.
In the eyes of the law, conspiracy in order to make a conviction, whether the accuse is guilty or not, is itself illegal. "Pakat", such as planting evidence or conspire with witnesses, is a crime.
Caripasal: A political conspiracy indeed, but the prosecutor still requires indisputable evidence in the court. If Anwar had sodomised Saiful but the prosecutor failed to present indisputable evidence, then he is innocent in the rule of law.
Remember the OJ Simpson murder case. In this case, the evidence presented by the prosecution failed to proof that the sodomy had taken place.
The judges found Anwar guilty, simply because of the pressure from their political masters, and not based on scientific evidence. To find someone guilty, without scientific evidence, is very dangerous.
Shafee, why didn’t you say that it is a political prosecution in court? You, in fact, denied it.
Based on Shafee's statement (as a prosecutor), he should be charged perhaps for giving false statement in court, and Anwar should file for judicial review
Gggg: Shafee should not be seen getting personal about Anwar's case. He was the prosecution officer and he should not be seen taking sides but to lay the facts before the court to decide.
Anonymous_1423767573: Why the need to keep repeating yourself and attacking someone who is already behind bars due to a conspiracy you have now justified and whose script you helped write and argued in court?
Methinks you protest too loud - it’s completely unethical and un-lawyerly behaviour. But then, I'm sure you are well-paid for your 'sacrifice'.
Iiiizzzziiii: Any credibility and integrity of Shafee has been completely destroyed in the Paul Phua case in the United States by roping in the home minister to write a letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) pleading for his safe return to Malaysia.
When a lawyer goes to such extend to defend a known crook internationally, based on what moral authority he can justify the action against Anwar?
Negarawan: Shafee and his Umno masters can call Anwar's jailing anything they want as they can act with total impunity.
However, other foreign countries with a transparent, clean, and fair judiciary and legal system call it a trumped-up charge. Based on merit and truth, defence lawyer Gopal Sri Ram won the case hands down. -Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.