Bar Council's double standards on pardons for prisoners?
by Eng Ling Ton
Like any other prisoner, pursuant to the constitution, Najib has the right to file a petition for pardon at any time after his jailing.
I read with dismay the Bar Council’s statement condemning jailed former prime minister Najib Razak’s bid for a royal pardon.
Firstly, it is no duty of the Bar Council to make comments on the application of a prisoner, no matter how prominent, for a royal pardon. It is a matter solely for the pardons board and the King. The Bar’s statement appears to be an improper attempt to pre-empt or influence their decision through the media.
Like any other prisoner, pursuant to the constitution, Najib has the right to file a petition for pardon at any time after his jailing. That the Bar Council itself has chosen to disrespect and subvert this process is shocking.
Secondly, the Bar Council disingenuously claims that other prominent prisoners such as Anwar Ibrahim served part of their sentences before being granted a pardon. However, the Bar strangely fails to point out that Anwar rushed to file a pardons petition within two weeks of his jailing on Feb 10, 2015.
Why didn’t the Bar Council then issue a similar statement opposing a grant of royal pardon to Anwar Ibrahim until he had served some part of his sentence? Having not done so, why issue such a statement in Najib’s case?
Surely this is blatant double standards and political bias on the part of the Bar Council. The concern for the administration of justice raised by the Bar in its statement appears to be pure pretence, hypocrisy and dishonesty.
The Bar Council is professional statutory body which has no business interfering in or taking sides in political matters, or to favour or be against particular political figures or political parties.
Going by the trend of statements such as these coming from the Bar Council, can anyone be blamed for regarding the Bar Council as being biased in favour of Pakatan Harapan and against Umno and Barisan Nasional?
*********
kt comments:
Bar Council made a hullabaloo cum song & dance over Najib's application to engage a British QC (now KC), arguing the Bar has enough expertise not to require a QC, yet made no noise, not even a squeak when the former AG Tommy Thomas engaged two, yes TWO not just one QC's to advise him on some of his cases.
What e'f'f'-ing double standards and an obvious unmitigated and shameless prejudice against Najib.
I noticed too that the Bar Council has ventured into areas they should not.
ReplyDeletedid tt hire qcs to fight individual or private cases? if by hiring a hundred qcs, tt is acting in the best interests of the country why should the bc interfere
ReplyDeletewho is being shamelessly prejudice and unpatriotic here on account of one's love and devotion for his idol
Bar Council argued Malaysia already has the necessary qualified lawyers thus no necessity to import QCs
DeleteMalaysian organisations, individuals and even the Malaysian government have come consulted foreign lawyers, yes, including QC for years.
ReplyDeleteFor example, if a case involves international aviation or international shipping, or complex international contracts, the government or organisation involved would be well advised to seek advise from a specialist lawyer, foreigner if necessary.
It is a different and much bigger step to have a foreign lawyer appear in Malaysian court to litigate the case. You need to get leave from the court that do so.
The Bar Council certainly have a right to object.
Don't try to label every time Najib gets an objection as unmitigated and shameless prejudice against Najib.
Nobody is arguing that Najib does not have the legal right to submit a request for a pardon
The Bar Council stated that it in not in the public interest for Najib to be granted a pardon in this case, which it has the right thing to do so.
This is yet another attempt to press all Najib critics to shut up.
as explained above, Bar Council argued Malaysia already has the necessary qualified lawyers thus no necessity to import QCs
DeleteYup, the SRC case did not involve any specialised legal skills that require the service of a QC, as far as the Bar Council is concerned.
DeleteTommy Thomas appointed specialist foreign lawyers on the Equanimity seizure case, that involved complex international dummy shell companies , international seizure and property extradition laws, and maritime ownership laws....
The Equanimity ship was seized in Indonesia..under US warrants....at the time I was wondering how Malaysia was going to handle the case involving goodness how many jurisdictions.....
It was expertly handled..no problem with that.
The pro-Najib team is desperate to tar everybody as prejudiced against him, ignoring the fact that different legal situations need to be handled differently.