SHAH ALAM, 19 Apr: The written judgement by the Court of Appeal on the Defamation II case against the PKR leader, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, is flawed, defensive and cannot be defended.
Lawyer N Surendran said that this judgement cannot be supported from a legal standpoint and the facts were essentially flawed from the beginning.
“Unprecedentedly, the judges go out of the ambit of the case before them by saying that ‘it would be stretching it too far to say that this appeal has been disposed of in haste’,” said Surendran in a statement.
He was referring to the written judgement dated April 11 by the Court of Appeal in the Defamation II case which criticises Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s decision to give a statement from the dock, instead received Saiful’s evidence and claims that Anwar’s defence was not credible.
Surendran said that this appears to be a defensive response to widespread public criticism, including a censure motion brought in the Dewan Rakyat against the three judges
“It is highly inappropriate for the judges to respond to criticism of their conduct in such a manner.
“The judgement in a criminal case must deal with the facts and law of the case, and not extraneous matters.
“Otherwise it raises questions about the Judges’ impartiality and objectivity; justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done,” said Surendran, who is also the PKR Vice President.
He added that the judges drew legally untenable conclusions based upon Anwar’s decision to give an unsworn statement from the dock when, in fact, under the criminal law it is the hallowed right of the accused person to make an unsworn statement from the dock.
“The Court of Appeal judgement has departed from all legal precedents by criticising Anwar for giving a statement from the dock,” said Surendran.
