Why Najib must be acquitted
By Tommy Thomas’s own confession, they did not yet know the whole truth at the time they arrested and charged Najib. Only after Najib was convicted did they know the whole truth. And the truth revealed today is that there are certain facts that indicate those who accuse Najib may be guilty of conflict of interest or worse.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
In 1997, I wrote a very “nasty” article about Anwar Ibrahim, which was published in Harakah. Pro-Anwar (at that time) Kamaruddin Jaafar, who used to be Deputy Prime Minister Tun Abdul Ghafar Baba’s political secretary, wrote a letter to Harakah condemning and rebutting what I said about Anwar.
Basically, what I wrote was (in short — because it was a long article) Anwar is a fraud and a hypocrite and that he would never become the Prime Minister of Malaysia. And I gave my reasons as to why I said that (most of the reasons which are still current until today).
Anwar was acquitted not because he is innocent but because the trial was flawed
In September 1998, when Anwar was sacked from Umno and the government, all I had to say was “padan muka” (serves him right). I had absolutely no pity or sympathy for him. My view was, when you dance with the devil, the devil ends up owning your soul.
Then I attended Anwar’s two trials (both the corruption and sodomy 1 trials), and as the trial unfolded, I could see that the entire thing smelled to high heavens. Was Anwar guilty of what he was accused of? Most likely he was guilty of more than that.
But that should not be the question. The question is, were they able to prove it and, second question, was Anwar given a fair trial?
Mahathir wanted Najib in jail, by hook or by crook, the same thing he did to Anwar
According to the law, the accused need not prove his/her innocence. Instead, the accuser (prosecution) needs to prove guilt. And if there is any doubt, then the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused.
Hence, he or she may or may not be guilty. But then ‘may’ is not enough grounds for conviction. It must be without doubt the accused is guilty. And justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.
So, in 1999, I turned from being an Anwar critic to an Anwar supporter. When I was arrested in April 2001, my Special Branch interrogators asked me why I believed that Anwar is innocent and do not believe the allegations against him.
I asked my interrogators when did I even once, from 1999 to 2001, ever say I believe Anwar is innocent and did not commit those crimes he was accused of committing? What I said was, Anwar did not get a fair trial in a kangaroo court and was a victim of trumped-up charges and fabricated evidence and false testimony from witnesses.
If the two Bank Negara Governors are crooks, then their evidence against Najib is highly suspect
It does not matter whether Anwar is guilty or innocent, I told the Special Branch officers. Was the prosecution able to prove it?
The Special Branch officers replied that their job is only to investigate. It is not their job to prosecute. They have no control over the prosecution. However, they can show me the evidence to prove that Anwar is guilty.
So why did they not adduce this evidence in court? Why suppress or hide this evidence? They replied that sometimes they need to suppress evidence so that they do not reveal how they obtain this evidence. They cannot compromise their source or reveal the methods of how the Special Branch does things.
Okay, fair enough! So, in short, they do not always tell the truth or they hide certain things. And that means the accused, whether guilty or not, did not get a fair trial. And that is the only thing that matters: whether the accused got a fair trial.
I did not like Anwar, but when I felt he did not get a fair trial, I supported him. And I paid for that many times by getting arrested.
Jho Low may have conspired with Mahathir to fix up Najib after all
Today, we are discussing the issue of Najib Tun Razak. Did Najib really steal 1MDB’s or SRC’s money? Is Najib innocent or guilty? Do you like Najib or do you hate him?
All that does not matter. Only one question needs to be asked. And that question is: did Najib get a fair trial or was crucial evidence suppressed and hidden from Najib’s defence team and from the court? And if the answer is yes, the issue of Najib’s guilt or innocence is irrelevant. That issue does not even need to be discussed.
And it appears that the Attorney-General and the government rigged Najib’s trial. They hid certain very crucial evidence from the defence team and the court. The excuse Tommy Thomas gave is that at that time the investigation was still ongoing and had not been completed yet. So they did not know these facts yet.
If that is true, why did they rush to charge Najib? Why not wait until the investigation was completed before charging Najib?
Tommy Thomas confessed that the investigation was not completed yet when they charged Najib
By Tommy Thomas’s own confession, they did not yet know the whole truth at the time they arrested and charged Najib. Only after Najib was convicted did they know the whole truth. And the truth revealed today is that there are certain facts that indicate those who accuse Najib may be guilty of conflict of interest or worse.
And those with dirty hands cannot point fingers at others, especially when they point fingers at others to conceal their own crimes. Najib may or may not be guilty. But this is not about winning. It is about how you play the game. And if you win by foul means, then that win is nullified. It is as simple as that. And you do not need to be a lawyer to understand that in law the end does not justify the means.
Sigh…I think I will be a lawyer when I grow up.
TWO PAGES FROM MACC’S 14-PAGE REPORT THAT REVEAL THE TRUTH
