THE reasons given by Attorney-General Tommy Thomas in his media release dated May 28 for the revocation of the service of lawyer Syazlin Mansor from representing the Housing and Local Government Ministry and the Fire and Rescue Department, in the Inquest into the death of firefighter Muhammad Adib Mohd Kassim, raise more doubts and questions than answers. This is especially since it was done in a high handed manner, 36 days after Syazlin had been involved in the Inquest without objection by the Attorney General’s Office, and the objection only came after she called the senior forensic pathology consultant Prof Shahrom Abd Wahid as expert witness who testified that scientific evidence pointed to Adib was indeed murdered at the Seafield Temple riot.
The interest of all parties in an inquest is to find the truth. An inquest is not a criminal trial, for there is no Prosecution and there is no Defense; likewise, there will be no winning or losing party at the end of the proceeding. Therefore, the claim made by Tommy that Syazlin was in a position of conflict of interest if she were to continue representing all three parties, namely the Ministry, the Fire Department and the family of Adib, because “the interests of these parties may conflict,” is clearly misguided and bears no basis under the law.
While the power to establish an Inquest is derived from Section 339 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), the procedures governing proceedings are spelled out in the Practice Direction No. 2 of the Judiciary dated April 8, 2014.
Paragraph B of Enclosure A states that “there are no ‘parties’ to an inquest;” while paragraph E stresses the “inquisitorial” nature of an Inquest, and not adversarial. In fact, our Court of Appeal in the case of Teoh Meng Kee v Public Prosecutor [2014] 5 MLJ, summed up the role of those involved in the proceeding as merely to assist the Coroner Court in a fact-finding mission, and nothing else.
Save for the coroner at the end of the proceedings, it is not for any of those involved in the fact-finding mission to take any position concerning the facts of the case. Therefore, the complaint raised by Tommy that “Syazlin took an active part in the Inquest, often contradicting the positions [the Attorney General’s Chamber’s] DPPs have taken, thus causing embarrassment in her capacity as the Ministry’s lawyer,” is simply untenable, for the DPPs and the Attorney-General’s Chamber should not, in the first place, prematurely take any position with regard to the cause of death, be that by accident or homicide, before the proceeding ends.
If the DPPs and Attorney-General’s Chamber have already taken a position as to what caused the death of Adib, there would be no reason to proceed with the Inquest, since the very reason that an Inquest is called is because the cause of death is unknown. Therefore, whatever theory there are concerning the cause of death must be allowed to be presented in full in the course of the proceeding, and it is highly unbecoming for the AG to fault Syazlin’s active role in questioning the witnesses to test the veracity and falsity of their testimonies. Such an active role should instead be commended, because that is exactly what is expected of every advocate and solicitor and every officer of the court – to uphold the cause of justice without fear or favour.
Those who follow the proceedings of the Inquest would notice that Syazlin represented the ministry and the Fire and Rescue Department well, as reflected by the statement issued by the political secretary to the Housing Minister dated May 28, which expressed the Ministry’s gratitude to her excellent service that was rendered pro bono. One would also note that in the course of proceedings, the expert witness Dr Shahrom had pointed out many loopholes, inadequacies and half-hearted work in the investigation, and had suggested that the Attorney-General’s Chamber consider instructing further investigations be held so as to tighten up the case. This power to instruct further investigation is provided for under Section 339(2) of the CPC.
But all these, and the rule of law, would only have meaning, if the A-G and his office have an open mind, instead of being all too hasten to conclude that Adib was not murdered just so that the possible murderers be exonerated.
It is concerning enough that we have an A-G that is making a travesty of our justice system. It is even more worrying that we have an A-G that is so ignorant of the law, that he could not even discern the difference between a fact-finding mission on the one hand, with that of a trial on the other. – May 29, 2019.
*Aidil Khalid is a lawyer practising in Kota Damansara, and activist member of the Concerned Lawyers for Justice (CLJ).
* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.
Malaysia 5G rollout hits new snag, says report
Najib house arrest pressure puts many in a bind
Banyak pihak tertekan dengan perintah tahanan rumah Najib
Lawyer chides govt for ‘hiding’ royal order for Najib house arrest
2 things about private higher education you didn't know
Azmyl Yunor
Comments
Posted 4 years ago by Swaminaidu Venkatasamy · Reply
Aiyah ..... despite the PKR Reformasi slogan of "No to corruption, cronyism and nepotism", cronyism is still very much alive in PKR. AZMIN is a master practitioner and "sh*t stirrer" and Zuraidah is his stooge and student. Consider .... the lawyer is the wife of her political (or is it press?) secretary ............. and she is representing the government for FREE !!! (unheard of; working without remuneration for the government). As a lawyer, she should have known of the conflict of interest (did Zuraidah knew it too but kept quiet ??).
Did she do it to solely advance the political career of her husband? Now that she was removed (and found out?) had she lost interest whatsoever?
She can still represent Adib's family as Mahathir and the AG said. Why not?? Was it not her intention in the first instance but primarily for her and husband's own selfish interest. Did she ever have any interest in Adib's family at heart? Or to promote her husband instead?
The AG may not have paid much attention to the fine details of this case. I pity him, he had too much on his plate, eg, 1MDB, SRC, contracts renegotiation with countless businesses, ferreting out corruptions, etc .... but ultimately he had to make a statement ....... but unfair to place the blame on him.
The blame should rest on Zuraidah for her cronyism, ignorance or closing an eye!!!
Posted 4 years ago by Malaysian First · Reply
Posted 4 years ago by Ron Gan · Reply
Posted 4 years ago by Peter Chen · Reply
Posted 4 years ago by Mindy Singh · Reply
Posted 4 years ago by Watchdog Watchdog · Reply
Backdoor lawyer. Desert product
Posted 4 years ago by Watchdog Watchdog · Reply
Posted 4 years ago by Teruna Kelana · Reply