Obsolete law used to appoint Shafee in Sodomy II appeal, says Karpal: PUTRAJAYA, Sept 18 — Lawyers for Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim today argued that the attorney-general had used an obsolete provision to appoint a private lawyer to act for the government in its appeal against Anwar’s second sodomy acquittal. Anwar’s lead counsel, Karpal Singh, said that section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which was used to appoint Datuk Seri Mohd Shafee Abdullah, is no longer applicable due to amendments to another provision dealing with government representation. Section 378 of the CPC, which was amended in 1998, states that none other than the public prosecutor, senior deputy public prosecutors (DPP) or DPPs may act on behalf of the government in an appeal. Section 379 of the same law meanwhile allows the attorney-general the power to appoint “fit and proper” private lawyers to represent the government. “The question that arises is the effect on section 379 with the amendments to section 378, which is that section 379 is rendered obsolete,” Karpal told the Court of Appeal. Anwar is attempting to recuse Shafee from acting for the government, on grounds that the latter had been involved in previous cases against him. The three-member panel, chaired by Datuk Ramly Ali, will announce its decision at 3pm today. Karpal also submitted that Shafee was a material witness in Anwar’s second sodomy trial, by the fact that he had been offered to the defence as a witness and had his statement taken. Citing the Legal Profession Act, which governs the conduct of lawyers in the country, Karpal said it is expressly stated that any lawyer who is directly or indirectly involved in a particular case cannot act as counsel for any party in a related case. Shafee agreed with Karpal that a person “totally embroiled” in a case is unfit to act as counsel in a related case, but noted that the issue of conflict of interests must be substantially proven. “The trial is over and there is no more a possibility for someone like me to adduce, or not adduce, evidence,” he said. Shafee also rebutted Karpal’s assertion that he was a material witness in Anwar’s earlier trial, saying that they had failed to show how he could be considered as one. Shafee argued that it is common practice for potential witnesses to have their statements recorded and that it is no indication of whether or not they are material witnesses. “There was no interview, no one approached me to be a witness... this is inferential and pure conjecture,” he said, referring to the claim that he was a material witness. The Court of Appeal has since ruled in favour of allowing Shafee to continue acting on behalf of the government in its appeal against Anwar. However, it has yet to set the next date to hear the appeal proper. dlvr.it/3zrMj6
Posted on: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 09:40:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015