How many times do I need to explain this?

So all this talk that I should attend trial and prove my innocence is pure hogwash. I would not be able to prove my innocence because I would not be asked to do so. In fact, in the first place, I should not even be asked to prove my innocence, as the Prosecution has to prove my guilt.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

My simple observation on the Raja Petra Kamarudin issue is for him to stand up and be counted. 

Opportunities rarely knock twice and his chance to defend himself and prove his allegations in open court came and went when he decided to flee.

However, since he has decided to forgo the opportunity, perhaps it is now a wiser option for the government to focus its attention on more pressing matters than attempting to extradite him, such as resolving the issue of Malaysians overstaying in Britain. 

A person who has deep convictions in what he believes to be the truth would face the consequences of his actions head on, irrespective of whether there are unconditional guarantees to safeguard his safety and wellbeing.

NIZAM MOHD REZA, Kuala Lumpur (New Straits Times, 8 January 2010) 

I do not blame Nizam Mohd Reza for arriving at this ‘simple observation’. After all, even Federal Court judges ruled that Anwar Ibrahim is guilty because he failed to prove his innocence. And this was what the written judgement said: the accused failed to convince the court of his innocence. Therefore, the court finds him guilty. 

There are two issues here. First is that the accused does not need to prove his innocence. The Prosecution needs to prove guilt. The onus is on the Prosecution to prove guilt, not the task of the Defence to prove innocence. In a criminal indictment, all the accused needs to do is to raise doubt. And if the accused succeeds in raising doubt, then the court has to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. That’s where the phrase ‘benefit of the doubt’ comes from.

Second, in the many charges that I faced (Sedition and Criminal Defamation), there is no avenue to prove my innocence even if I wish to do so (which, as I said, is not my job anyway). Sedition and Criminal Defamation is not about whether what I wrote is true or false. It is about whether I did or did not write what I was alleged to have written.

In other words, it does not matter whether what I wrote was the gospel. The court is not concerned about the truth of the matter. The court only wants to know whether I did write what I have been alleged to have written. If I did, then I am guilty and I go to jail. Never mind if what I wrote may be true. I will still be found guilty and will be sent to jail.

The fact that I was first hauled in and interrogated by the police on allegations that I had written lies and that I had signed a false Statutory Declaration, but later charged for something else, proves the mala fide of the police. The police reports against me stated that I had written lies in my article and that I had signed a false declaration. But if they charge me for writing lies and for signing a false Statutory Declaration then they would have to prove this.

The police then raided my house and confiscated two computers that they found in my house. The computers were then sent to the forensic people who tried looking for copies of the article on my hard disk plus evidence that I had uploaded the article onto the website.

But they found nothing.

Later they adjourned the trial and requested permission from the court to do a second examination of the computer but still found nothing. The police report, however, said I had lied and the charge, in fact, also stated the same thing. But how do they prove I lied unless they go through what I wrote in court, sentence by sentence, and examine the truth of the matter?

The Prosecution knew that to prove I had lied was an uphill task. I need not prove what I wrote was true. Instead, the Prosecution has to prove that I lied. Knowing they would not be able to do this without opening a can of worms, they decided to dispense with the true or false exercise and instead just charge me for Sedition and Criminal Defamation — which does not need to touch on the truth of the matter but just whether I did or did not write what I was alleged to have written.

In other words, the government wanted to avoid discussing what I wrote but instead just focus on whether I did write it. Furthermore, they would avoid discussing whether what I signed in the Statutory Declaration is true or false and instead just focus on whether I did sign that Statutory Declaration.

So all this talk that I should attend trial and prove my innocence is pure hogwash. I would not be able to prove my innocence because I would not be asked to do so. In fact, in the first place, I should not even be asked to prove my innocence, as the Prosecution has to prove my guilt. But with what I have been charged with, that does not even apply. All they need to do is prove that I did it (true or false as the case may be notwithstanding). And even then they could not do that because the computers they confiscated were not my computers but belonged to someone else and they just happened to be in my house at the time the police raid occurred.

The fact is, even if I did do it they can’t prove it because the computers I used to update Malaysia Today were not in my house at the time of the police raid and what they confiscated were not the ‘offensive weapon’.

Let me put it another way. I do own a gun. And I did use my gun to commit murder. But I have since thrown that particular gun into the river and the gun they found in my house belonged to someone else and was not the gun that was used to commit the murder.

Now do you get it?

So what do the police do? Knowing that they were losing their case and would never be able to prove that I did write that article and/or uploaded it onto the Internet, they decided to detain me without trial under the Internal Security Act. And in my Detention Order it stated that my offence was for writing that exact article that I had already been charged for and was facing trial. (Plus they threw in ‘insulting Islam’ as additional charges to strengthen their case so that if they get knocked out on one charge they still had others to hang on to).

In other words, I was being punished twice for the same so-called crime. And you just can’t punish someone twice for the same crime. And since I was now serving my sentence under detention without trial, they should have dropped the charges against me.

But they did not. Even as I was under detention they kept dragging me to court to face trial. I was already serving a sentence under the Internal Security Act. Yet they were still trying to convict me for that same crime. And if they succeed in convicting me then I would be serving two sentences simultaneously, both for the same crime.

This, the government-owned mainstream media has kept hidden from the public. They are making it appear like I am a fugitive who refuses to face trial. What they failed to mention is that I have already been punished for that crime and should not be punished a second time for the same thing.

That is the law.

And, to make matters worse, the High Court declared by detention illegal and released me. The fact that the High Court released me does not mean I have not served my sentence. I have. It is just that the court views my detention as illegal.

Not happy in leaving things alone, the government appealed my release (at the same time they announced they will not appeal the Razak Baginda acquittal). And the Federal Court gave me hell. Every step of the way the Federal Court put obstacles in our way. They even sat with a two-man quorum to hear our objections to Augustine Paul being one of the judges. The court just can’t sit with a two-man quorum. But in my case they did although it violates the constitution.

We then filed an appeal in another Federal Court and the second court agreed that a two-man quorum is just so wrong. So the first Federal Court was given a slap in the face. But instead of re-sitting, this time with a three-man quorum to hear our application for Augustine Paul to recuse, they adjourned indefinitely without fixing a new hearing date.

It is almost one year now and still the Federal Court refuses to continue with the appeal against my release. Why? Well, because if they do then they would have to sit with a three-man quorum to hear our application to kick out Augustine Paul. And note that I do not have to be present in this hearing because it is the Prosecution that is appealing the High Court’s decision to release me from Internal Security Act detention. I have not been arrested or put on bail. So I need not be present in court. The hearing can proceed without me. But it has not proceeded for almost a year and the court has not explained why this hearing has been frozen and put in limbo.

Anyway, Augustine Paul refused to recuse and the Federal Court wanted him to stay as one of my three judges. But God stepped in and removed Augustine Paul as one of my judges. So, like it or not, the Federal Court no longer has any choice but to replace Augustine Paul since he is already food for worms in the ground.

But why have they not done so? What’s to stop the Federal Court from replacing the now very dead Augustine Paul with another half-dead Federal Court judge and proceed with hearing the appeal by the government? My presence is not required. I do not have to be in court because I am not under arrest or out on bail. It is an appeal by the government and only the lawyers need to be in court.

Yes, the government-owned mainstream media is not talking about all this. Instead, they are spinning stories that I am a fugitive who refuses to appear in court to prove my innocence. Where the fuck did they learn their law from? I never went to law school and even I know how it is supposed to work.

Hmm…maybe I will become a lawyer when I grow up.

Anyway, look at the following extract from Malaysiakini with regards to the church bombings in the wee hours of Friday morning. This more or less dovetails with what I wrote in The Corridors of Power yesterday (Kelantan 1977 revisited: to understand Selangor 2010).

Jeffrey Kitingan does not think the arson attacks were isolated incidents, which could be excused as the work of “some cowards or fanatics”. 

“It is bad enough that the Customs are sitting on our Bahasa Indonesia language Bibles for using the word ‘Allah’,” said Jeffrey.

He’s convinced the Umno government’s handling of the Allah issue was the inspiration and the clearest evidence that “the party is up to no good in the emerging new politics of the nation”. 

“I think that there are certain elements in Umno who have this thinking that when it comes to the crunch, they must be willing to employ strong-arm tactics to remain in power,” said Jeffrey.

“This means deliberately embarking on a campaign of intimidation and instilling fear to beat others into submission.”

“It is ironic that people in Peninsular Malaysia would demonstrate over us in far away Sabah and Sarawak using the term ‘Allah’ for God in our Bible and prayers,” said Jeffrey.

“After 50 years, surely we have to ask ourselves whether we still want a party which is no better than the British colonialists. Where is our freedom?” asked Jeffrey.

“They indulge in divide-and-rule tactics like the British, treat us like slaves, are trying to introduce racial polarisation a la Malaya and exploit our resources without developing our states.”

Jeffrey points out that he does not want to “sound like a broken record stuck in the same groove” by reciting the litany of federal government transgressions in Sabah and Sarawak besides the Allah issue.

“Mark my words. Umno is bent on systematically creating political chaos in the country to save itself out of the hole it had dug itself into over the years,” warned Jeffrey.

“Everyone is beginning to see the hollowness of PM Najib’s so-called 1Malaysia theme. It was too good to be true.”

(Malaysiakini, 9 January 2010)