EXCESSIVE, unprecedented and unnecessary.

This was how the legal fraternity described the custodial sentence dished out by the Federal Court on lawyer Arunachalam Kasi after finding him guilty of contempt.

Arunachalam, better known as Arun Kasi, was sentenced to 30 days’ jail and fined RM40,000 for contempt over his two statements criticising the proceedings and decision of a Federal Court.

Arun was accused of making criticisms in reference to an affidavit of Court of Appeal Judge Abdul Hamid Sultan Abu Backer on alleged judicial misconduct, in two articles published on the Aliran online portal on February 16 and February 22, 2019.

In both articles, Arun had criticised the conduct of the proceedings by the Federal Court and the decision that was delivered on November 11, 2018, in the case of PCP Construction vs Leap Modulation.

Lawyers for Liberty executive director Latheefa Koya and former minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Zaid Ibrahim said the sentence was unprecedented.

Latheefa told The Malaysian Insight that the ruling was certainly excessive.

“He should not have been convicted in the first place. There should be the widest latitude given to those who criticise court judgment. It is unprecedented to jail someone for comments made on a court judgment. 

“In any case, the so-called contempt charges are related to the affidavit of Justice Hamid and the pending Royal Commission of Inquiry. So this contempt proceeding should never have been brought,” she said.

Zaid described the ruling as uncalled for and expressed surprise as he had also been critical of the judiciary in the past but there was no action taken against him.

“The subject was the integrity of the courts or the behaviour of the judges. This has been a subject of discussion for over the years… some unsavoury and not so kind, (and) some worrying. 

“It is not as if we’ve never had any scandals. So for them to suddenly take the criticism so seriously is uncalled for,” Zaid told The Malaysian Insight.

Referring to the instances where various tags such as “thief” and a “kleptocrat” were hurled at former prime minister Najib Razak by politicians, Zaid said this was also akin to scandalising and influencing the court because the Pekan MP is still facing trial and has yet to be found guilty.

“This is against the principle of sub judice. This can also be looked at as scandalising the court.

“The good thing about us is over the years we have always been tolerant about people criticising the court because it is in public interest,” he said.

He added that he had high expectations on the government because of the promises they made on bringing changes in terms of freedom of speech and transparency. 

Freedom of speech, he said, is always a threat everywhere, but it is important to try and preserve and protect it.

Earlier in a tweet, Zaid urged the Bar Council to go on a march to the Palace of Justice to protest the action against Arun Kasi. When asked about this, he said he was merely putting a suggestion across to the Bar Council and would join if there was such an event.

Prominent Human Rights lawyer Eric Paulsen said in a series of tweets that the ruling was absolutely unnecessary and will not promote public confidence.

“This is absolutely unnecessary and will not promote public confidence. Justice is not a cloistered virtue and everyone must be allowed to be critical, rightly, wrongly, even being rude or outspoken regarding the judiciary.

“The offence of scandalising the judiciary is archaic and ought to be abolished. Respect for the judiciary cannot be enhanced through contempt proceedings i.e., the courts themselves assessing whether allegations of impropriety against the judiciary are justified,” he said in his tweets.

Paulsen said the judiciary can only command respect by their conduct in and out of court and through their judgments regardless of any criticisms or offensive remarks that may have been directed towards them.

The Malaysian Representative to the Asean Inter-governmental Commission on Human Rights added that the freedom of speech was at stake.

“It is our right to speak out on matters of public interests and judges and their judgments should not be shielded from criticisms.”

Concurring with the Eric, lawyer Syahredzan Johan tweeted that the custodial sentence of 30 days is unnecessary and excessive, adding that a fine would have been sufficient. – April 23, 2019.