KUALA LUMPUR – Whether or not a judge tends to prevent key evidence from being presented in court is among the main indicators if he is indeed acting independently.
In a series of tweets, PKR’s Rafizi Ramli said he came to this conclusion based on his experience attending 14 court cases over the span of 10 years, during his time in active politics.
The former Pandan MP has since announced his retirement from mainstream politics in December 2019 but is understood to be still a member of PKR.
“I have seen for myself the behaviour of dozens of judges from the magistrates’ court to the apex court,” he said today.
Mcm mana nak nilai hakim bebas atau terima arahan ghaib?
— Rafizi Ramli (@rafiziramli) February 6, 2022
Bila keputusan yg x berpihak tokoh yg kita sokong, mudah kita kata campur tangan politik.
Penyokong @NajibRazak mudah tuduh YA Hakim terima arahan, mereka x sedar krjn yg berkuasa semasa hukuman dijatuhkan adalah Umno. https://t.co/LmeDWADyIp
According to Rafizi, it is easy for certain parties to accuse a judge of taking orders from hidden hands when meting out a sentence that is not in favour of an individual that they support.
He gave an example of Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s SRC International case at the high court which was presided by judge Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali, who sentenced the former prime minister to 12 years’ jail and a fine of RM210 million in July 2020.
The Court of Appeal upheld this decision on December 8 last year.
“When the decision is not in their favour, it is easy to blame political interference. Najib’s supporters accused Nazlan of taking orders, but they didn’t realise the government at the time the sentence was delivered was Umno.”
Rafizi went on to explain the five indications of a fair and full judgement, which he said Nazlan had fulfilled, the first being whether there is clear evidence to prove an offence.
“If the money trail is clear, then the evidence is strong and it is not circumstantial. If the trail is supported by events and physical evidence, then the proof is even stronger.”
Rafizi said the second indication relies on the defence of the accused, whether the excuses given are strong enough to prove his innocence.
The PKR man said the public should also look at all the decisions made by the judge throughout a trial, including whether he blocks attempts by one party to present arguments such as by rejecting key evidence.
Rafizi added that the full judgement in a verdict could also tell if the judge had acted independently, as this would reveal if he (the judge) had taken arguments of both the plaintiff and defendant, as well as the relevant laws, into consideration before making a decision, among other things.
Finally, Rafizi said the public should also ask if the judge had taken public interest and personal motives into account before handing out a sentence, and considered whether the sentence will bring justice to all.
“These are the methods (to be considered) before you accuse the existence of hidden hands.
“There are judgements which are weak in certain factors, including preventing key evidence.
“I have read Nazlan’s judgement. In my opinion, he did not care who was in power at the time. God willing, there will be more judges like this.”
Rafizi was responding to a comment from a user @Drfit3OTHMAN who had said that respect should only be given to a judge who is just and fair, and not to someone who takes orders from behind.
This was in response to Rafizi’s original tweet yesterday expressing his delight at seeing Nazlan being promoted to the Court of Appeal on Thursday. – The Vibes, February 6, 2022
