Court of Law versus Court of Public Opinion in the deciding of criminal cases

Umar Mukhtar

It does seem to me now that in Malaysia criminal liability is subject to popular discretionary judgement. Prime Minister Najib Razak, though yet to be prosecuted by a court of law, has been condemned by what appears to be popular judgement, thus stirring his supporters to rally around him to protect him no matter what. The courts of law seem superfluous.

The court of public opinion, which has no mandated procedural guidelines, seems to prevail. The ultimate court of public opinion is actually the general elections, but some who are strongly guided by personal opinion can’t wait because to them both the general elections and the legal process are flawed.

Hence, the kangaroo court. So if Botak Chin were allowed to campaign for his life, the reputedly charismatic criminal would not have been hanged. And this involves after-the-fact cases too. After being found guilty, Anwar Ibrahim is still dreaming to be released early because apparently the Federal Court that sentenced him had erred by not seeking public opinion? Bullshit!

The only way for Anwar to be released, under our constitution, is for him to be pardoned by the Yang DiPertuan Agong. A pardon by the Agong does not repudiate the verdict and findings of the Federal Court. Anwar is by law still a sodomist. If he were found guilty by the highest court of the land he is guilty. There is no two ways about it. In the temporal court of the after-world? That’s out of our jurisdiction.

But because he has the support or the sympathy of the prospective new government in power, he will be released from his mandated punishment. It is as if those guys have taken over what was his personal responsibility, even though every man is responsible for his actions. Architect Raja Bahrain said that Mahathir wants to release Anwar as part of the reforms if he wins. Cut my left ear if Mahathir is allowed to do that, and cut my right ear if he would just love to that if he can,

There seems to be a confusion of ultimate responsibility. Just like a collapsed stadium could be caused by bureaucratic or political interference in the awarding of contract of works and structural engineers, it is the project architect that is overall responsible for the integrity of the project.

If the project architect collects his professional fees and does not vote with his feet in protest of the undue interference, he can’t turn around after the stadium had collapsed and point his finger at others as if his responsibilities were wrested away from him without his implied consent.

Anwar can ask for a re-trial to clear his name if he has sufficient justification, and if you changed all the judges for the re-trial to be favourable to you, then you are doing what you accused others of doing.

Not likely for Anwar to seek a new trial though when he did not even make use of the opportunity availed by his previous trial to defend himself vigorously. Can you imagine Lim Kit Siang or Tok Guru Hadi Awang being wrongly accused of sodomy and refusing to take the stand to defend themselves?

The trouble with courts of public opinion is, you are okay even if you had committed the crime. It’s what is preferred by lay-judges that counts. As unlikely as it is for Anwarinas to accept that Anwar sodomised the chap, it is still okay to them even if he did because in other countries it is not a criminal offence.

Similarly, as difficult as it is for the UMNO division leaders to accept that Najib stole the money, it is okay even if he did because he spent some of it on the party.

So we make rules as we go along. And if Najib went to prison, when UMNO wins back power they will release him the way the opposition will release Anwar?

I guess the Penal Code is only to protect our chickens from being stolen by the lowly petty thief.