With double convictions, Rafizi unlikely to contest in GE14, says lawyer

Asila Jalil Noel Achariam Asila Jalil, Noel Achariam Updated 6 years ago · Published on 7 Feb 2018 2:23PM · 3 Comments

Rafizi Ramli speaking to members of the media at the Shah Alam sessions court today. He is currently appealing against a previous conviction, where he was found to have contravened the Official Secrets Act for leaking the audit report of troubled state investment arm 1Malaysia Development Bhd. – The Malaysian Insight pic by Najjua Zulkefli, February 7, 2018.

PAKATAN Harapan faces a potential setback after stalwart Rafizi Ramli was today found guilty of breaching the Banking and Financial Institutions Act (Bafia), casting further doubt over his ability to contest in the 14th general election.

Rafizi is already appealing against a previous conviction, where he was found to have contravened the Official Secrets Act (OSA) for leaking the audit report of troubled state investment arm 1Malaysia Development Bhd.

The PKR vice-president’s lawyer, Ahmad Nizam Hamid, said it would not be safe for Rafizi to stand as a candidate in GE14 due to the double convictions, even though the OSA judgment was currently being appealed at the Court of Appeal.

“Even though in the OSA case, we managed to get a stay of execution, still (the) conviction is there, so it’s not safe for him to stand as a candidate,” he told reporters at the Shah Alam sessions court today.

Rafizi and former Public Bank clerk Johari Mohamad Johari were found guilty by the Shah Alam sessions court today of breaching Bafia in relation to the National Feedlot Corporation Sdn Bhd accounts leak.

In an immediate response, fellow PKR lawmaker and lawyer N. Surendran said Rafizi’s conviction was a black mark for the country because he should not have been prosecuted in the first place.

Surendran said Rafizi and Johari were exposing details concerning misuse of public funds.

“The fact that they have been convicted and sentenced to 30 months’ jail is a blow to our country’s international reputation.

“They are clearly whistleblowers and yet they have been convicted.

“We are all shocked and disappointed at the outcome. But everyone will fight on to ensure that justice is done,” Surendran told The Malaysian Insight.

Judge Zamri Bakar said the prosecution had proven its case beyond doubt.

Deputy public prosecutors Lailawati Ali and Steven Chin appeared for the prosecution, while Nizam appeared for Rafizi and Latheefa Koya appeared for Johari.

Nizam applied for a stay application, which the judge granted. Bail was set at RM15,000.

Surendran said the sentence for Rafizi and Johari was “excessive”, as their expose had resulted in the charging of an individual for misusing funds.

“In those circumstances, it was harsh, and I think their lawyers are appealing and hopefully there will be justice.” – February 7, 2018.

Sign up or sign in here to comment.

Comments

  • The 1 brought up this issue was convicted while the 1 guilty walks away scot free.

    Posted 6 years ago by Leslie Chan · Reply

  • Rafizi should stand for election and win the seat, even though he would have to give it up later. That way Anwar Ibrahim does not have to get another MP to vacate her seat for him to contest, after he has been granted a pardon.

    Posted 6 years ago by Meng Kow Loh · Reply

  • WHISTLEBOWING UNDER THE COMMON LAW

    Whistleblowers are, in effect, protected under the Common Law as there can be 'no confidence as to the disclosure of iniquity': Gartside v. Outram (1856),26 L.J. Ch. 113 at 114-116 (per Wood V-C).

    The Vice-Chancellor's ruling was propounded by Lord Denning MR in Initial Services Ltd. v. Putternil et al., [1967] 3 All E.R. 145.

    The Common Law of Whistleblowing is not only limited to wrongdoing that amounts to a criminal offence or unlawful activity.

    As Lord Denning explained in Initial Services, supra: "[Counsel for the employer] suggested that [the whistleblower defence] was confined to cases where the master has been 'guilty of a crime or fraud'. But I do not think that it is so limited. It extends to any misconduct of such a nature that it ought in the public interest to be disclosed to others. The Vice-Chancellor put it in a vivid phrase: 'There is no confidence as to the disclosure of iniquity'."

    Common Law Defence of Whistleblowing is therefore way much broader.

    Last but not least, the Common Law abhors the crimes of corruption and fraud :
    Whitaker [1914] 3 K.B. 1283

    http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2018/02/07/rafizi-ex-bank-clerk-jailed-30-months-over-nfc-bank-accounts-leak/

    Posted 6 years ago by Hakimi Abdul Jabar · Reply