Gag order unconstitutional, say lawyers

Bede Hong Bede Hong Updated 7 years ago · Published on 5 Jul 2018 7:00AM · 11 Comments

Constitutional lawyer Lim Wei Jiet says the gag order against any public discussion or reporting on former prime minister Najib Razak's graft trial is unconstitutional. – The Malaysian Insight file pic, July 5, 2018.

A COURT gag order against discussing or reporting on Najib Razak’s graft case is unconstitutional as it violates the freedom of expression, lawyers said.

Constitutional lawyer Lim Wei Jiet said the gag order violates Article 10(1)(a) of the federal constitution, which guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression.

“Najib’s trial is an important case which evokes discussion on abuse of power and corruption at the highest level of government. The public, and more so the media, have an overwhelming interest – even a duty – to participate in such discussions,” he said.

Constitutional lawyer Surendra Ananth said the gag order is “draconian in nature”, adding that only Parliament has the right to bar discussions.

“It effectively restricts the freedom of expression, which is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Such a right can only be restricted by Parliament, expressly provided for in Article 10(2)(a) of the federal constitution,” he said.

Surendra said it is imperative that the public be kept informed of what happens in the trial as the case involves public funds. The media’s role is imperative in keeping the public appraised, he said.

Granting a gag order is akin to saying that the judge might be influenced by media reports, he said.

“The only person who decides at the end of the day is the judge. A high court judge is constitutionally expected to decide any case solely on the merits.”

Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Sofian Abd Razak yesterday granted a request from Najib’s lead counsel, Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, for an order to ban the public from discussing the four charges against the former prime minister, from now until August 8, when case management is heard.

Constitutional lawyer Syahredzan Johan said because Malaysia does not practise the jury system, media reports on this case – whether merit or otherwise – cannot discredit Najib.

He said it is undeniable that Najib is innocent until proven guilty and has the right to defend himself against all charges.

“I am convinced that Najib will be dealt with fairly by the court based on the statements submitted, rather than be influenced by media reports.”

Syahredzan, who is also political secretary to DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang, said the case is high profile and would inevitably gain worldwide attention regardless of a gag order.

“A closed order is in conflict with media freedom and will only punish local media and not foreign media due to limited court jurisdiction.”

Jury trials have been abolished in Malaysia since 1995, after which only judges hear and decide on cases.

Lim expressed doubt that a judge, trained to be objective and to decide according to the law, would be affected by media reports.

“There is no necessity for the gag rule to preserve the sanctity of the court trial,” Lim said.

“The gag rule also appears to discriminate against the local media. It appears that the foreign press is not bound by this gag rule.

“Malaysians will now rely less on local media and turn to international sources instead for commentary on this case. This would weaken the reach and quality of our local media – which is definitely detrimental to a young democracy like Malaysia.” – July 5, 2018.

Sign up or sign in here to comment.

Comments

  • Najib has bought the judge...

    Posted 7 years ago by Balachandar Sundram · Reply

  • Right on....it is a disgrace to request for a gag order...it is an enforcement of silencing the Rakyat !!

    Posted 7 years ago by Lana Tan · Reply

  • Malaysia is still bleeding! When people have learnt to behave themselves then it won't be necessary to have a gag order..

    Posted 7 years ago by MELVILLE JAYATHISSA · Reply

  • Nothing has changed.New label old content.Just carry on gambling to increase your revenues.

    Posted 7 years ago by Peter Poon · Reply

  • It is reported that the high court judge is the brother of Umno Pahang state executive. Ain't something fishy about that.?????????????????

    Posted 7 years ago by Lee Lee · Reply

    • if this is true, a shocking revelation

      Posted 7 years ago by Dao Wei Foo · Reply

    • OMG, are we back to the days of UMNO/BN Judiciary ???

      Posted 7 years ago by Betty Kee · Reply

  • Which is why the court date is so much delayed - to wait until the judiciary reform is put in place to ensure no kangaroo judgement??

    Posted 7 years ago by Deborah wong · Reply

  • Is it true that High Court judge in the proceeding, Datuk Mohd Sofian Abd Razak, is the brother of Umno Pahang state executive member Mohd Sofi Razak? Take your own guess..

    Posted 7 years ago by Mark Tan · Reply

  • Again the Judiciary is starting on the wrong foot ! Does this Judge knows what he is doing ? Is he really a Judge? How was he selected ?

    Posted 7 years ago by James Khong · Reply

  • I'm afraid that the learned and honorable judge has stepped beyond his jurisdiction to issue a gag order

    Posted 7 years ago by Peace Maker · Reply