Nothing wrong in Najib wanting the best lawyers
From Zaid Ibrahim
Much has been written on social media about Najib Razak’s plan to apply for permission to bring a Queen’s Counsel from England to argue his appeal.
Some make fun of his effort, saying his case is a simple case of corruption, and there are enough excellent lawyers in the country for him to turn to.
When you get a 12-year jail sentence, you will try to get the best lawyers you can. Not just Najib, it applies to all of us. There is no need to be dismissive about his application.
When you have cancer, you rush to Gleneagles in Singapore. No one tells you we have a large pool of cancer specialists. When we want to prepare a financial master plan, we call on McKinsey, although we have our own experts.
When we wanted to build the Petronas Twin Towers, we called on architects from New York, although David Teh (my friend incidentally) is a brilliant local architect.
When we look for lawyers to represent us, we face this powerful lobby reminding us that our lawyers are just as good. That we should deny entry of foreign lawyers. This argument has so far persuaded the courts.
I urge the courts not to try to ascertain objectively if we have the best lawyers for a particular case because such an assessment is flawed.
There is no way of knowing if indeed we have enough good lawyers in a particular field. It is also irrelevant. It does not matter even if we have the best lawyers, just as it does not matter if we have the best economists, cancer specialists or architects. When someone needs this expertise and is willing to pay for them, only their opinion counts.
The person whose life or liberty is at stake is the one who should decide that question. We do not try to know better about his needs. We should give more weight to what he thinks instead of some selfish group interests trying to protect their turf.
I know there is a strong group out there whom I call Najib haters. Let Najib have his day in court. After all, our Constitution clearly says that everyone has equal protection of the law, including a Malay leader named Najib Razak.
Zaid Ibrahim is a former federal minister.
Zaid Ibrahim is as usual acting as promoter for his buddy Najib.
ReplyDeleteIt is wrong to bring in the analogy to commercial or medical
issues. The Petronas Twin Tower architectural bid was intended to be international right from the start.
No one can begrudge a person seeking the best medical care they can afford , if a life-threatening illness is involved.
Malaysia cut its formal judicial ties to the United Kingdom more than 50 years ago , when Privy Council appeals ended.
No UK QC is allowed to conduct a law case in Malaysia , unless special leave is given by the court.
In Anwar Ibrahim's trial, a QC was allowed a watching brief, and but not actually involve in his case.
Criminal and constitutional matters appeals to the Privy Council in England were abolished on 1 January 1978 while civil matters appeal were abolished on 1 January 1985. It is 44 and 37 years respectively and not "more than 50 years ago"
DeleteI have to agree with Zaid on this.
ReplyDeleteIn a capitalistic society, justice is been camouflaged by the ability to buy one's way out of guilt via jagons filled with legal technicality.
ReplyDeleteCourt cases involving the rich & famous in Pommieland & Yankeeland r the prime examples of this excellent demonstration.