THE Federal Court’s decision to not allow Hisyam Teh Poh Teik to discharge himself has led former prime minister Najib Razak to conclude that his rights to life, liberty and fair hearing are at stake, which does not hold water.

This is simply because Najib – with all the wealth and status he enjoys as a former prime minister – should know better that there is a likelihood that the apex court would not agree to another postponement of his criminal case when he has decided for a new legal counsel.

It is also equally true that it is within the right of the court to reject Teh from discharging himself. This is a risk that Najib should have considered before appointing a new counsel, for the denial of those does not amount to the right to fair trial.

For instance, Teh was still afforded the opportunity to file fresh submissions, even though his attempt to discharge himself has failed.

The right to fair trial only guarantees an equal and fair hearing before the judges, but that right should not be construed as delaying the court process by abusing the right.

The development these few days pertaining to Najib’s final appeal certainly reeks of the latter.

It is already unusual for a litigant to change his counsel suddenly two to three weeks before his final appeal and the accompanying risk of the new lawyer not legally ready to tackle the case.

Furthermore, the attempt from Teh to discharge himself could also be interpreted as an attempt to hold the court to ransom.

This is because if the counsel does indeed have his client’s interest at heart, he would be scrambling to come up with a competent submission to argue his client’s case even under the constraints that were given, and not putting up unnecessary resistance by insinuating that the court is not impartial.

If you are still not convinced, Teh has since agreed to take up the case at the very last minute, admitting to the court of not being ready and asking for adjournment.

The adjournment was not granted and, therefore, he has requested to discharge himself, which the court again struck down, and by the end of the session, telling the court that he has no submissions to make if adjournment is not granted.

Even a person with the least legal knowledge would understand that this is not how a professional lawyer should conduct himself.

The right to change your legal counsel and a counsel that is readily available is crucial to the right to fair trial, but Najib and his legal team have exercised that right fully till the court is on the verge of being held ransom.

If there is anything to say about the right to fair trial, it is those delaying tactics from the legal team that have made a mockery of this sacrosanct principle and made the right bent over.

It is also harrowing that the employment of such tactics in the judiciary system is a luxury that only the rich and powerful could afford.

This is also why I am incensed when Najib could so openly talk about how he was left defenceless in court and denied a fair hearing – which he absolutely is not.

Speaking of the right to fair trial, where was Najib when those hundreds of people that were detained without trial under laws such as the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma), Prevention of Crime Act 1959 and Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 under his administration?

Lest we forget, under the notorious Najib administration, police have gone as far as arresting and detaining Bersih chairman Maria Chin Abdullah under Sosma. She was held in solitary confinement for 10 days and in those 10 days, she had zero access to legal counsel.

Did the right to fair trial come to Najib’s mind also when his government decided to pass the draconian Sosma, which completely derogates the right to fair trial back in 2012?

Under Sosma, there are 28 days of pre-trial detention, strict prohibition of bail, denial of legal counsel and family access, of which the state has continued to apply against ordinary Malaysians.

Najib should read up on how his government and those who came after him have been consistently denying individuals the right to fair trial under the legislation he had introduced.

Most of all, look up the stories documented by human rights organisations on those ordinary Malaysians who had their right mercilessly taken away by the state under Sosma in the name of public order.

These are the Malaysians who are truly defenceless in the face of authorities and the court, not Najib the former prime minister who is using every legal means to have his conviction quashed. – August 21, 2022.

* Kenneth Cheng has always been interested in the interplay between human rights and government but more importantly he is a father of two cats, Tangyuan and Toufu. When he is not attending to his feline matters, he is most likely reading books about politics and human rights or playing video games. He is a firm believer in the dictum “power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will”.

* 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.