Saturday, June 09, 2007

Bar Council slams "lame" A-G

Does the Attorney-General think that the Malaysian public is gullible? Lawyer Amer Hamzah Arshad, a member of the Bar Human Rights Committee, in an article on the 11th hour change of prosecution team in the Altantuya murder trial, which forced the trial's postponement to June 18, called Ghani Patail's explanation of the who episode "lame", and "disturbing", among other things.
"What could have probably been going through the AG’s mind when he made that statement? Did the AG realise that by making such a statement, he is indirectly casting aspersions towards the previous prosecution team as if they are unable to conduct the prosecution in a fair manner?"
Visit Elizabeth Wong for Amer Hamzah's For a fair trial? Click here for Ghani Patail's explanation and other lawyers' views.


  1. Anonymous2:15 pm

    Well..well..well. Was waiting for a post such as this. Have been wondering, now that the prosecution team has been replaced, should'nt the judge recuse himself from this and other cases for showing bad judgement in publicly cavorting (courting? badminton) with the prosecution team. He cannot claim ignorance or oversight as we refer to him as learned(wise) judge (yang arif...).

  2. Anonymous3:07 pm

    I think that the AG did was fair. He had the interests of the murder case and tried to eliminate possible elements that could be used against the trial, especially when the trial judge and lead prosecutor are sports buddies.

    Sure, some judges and senior lawyers attend the same school 25-30 years ago but those were elements that were 'uncontrolable' and were not planned. If the judge and lawyers still conveniently consort each other in social activities such has game buddies, then those some issues that could be contained now.

    After all, as Public Prosecutor, the AG changed the prosecution team last minute is not unlawful. On top of that, one of the lawyers wanted to apply an extension to study the new affidavit tendered, which was under the 2 weeks required minimum.

    So postponing is nothi8ng irregular.

  3. Anonymous8:21 pm

    I thought that the AG meant to say that the prosecution would not be able to conduct their case in a fair manner. Otherwise why would he change them?
    The change was not due to incompetence but by implication. The judge was known to have been close to the prosecutor and if the prosecution had succeeded aspersions would have been cast on the judgment and the judge, the choice was either changing the DPP or the judge. He had no power over the judge so he took one of his man out of the equation.
    I know it is fashionable to accuse the Government of wrongdoing but here it looks like the right thing to do....

  4. Anonymous8:30 pm

    well, what the AG did was to spawn more speculators and conspiracy theorists. and the world is watching.