Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this
mk-logo
News
AG acts like Ibrahim Ali’s defence lawyer

YOURSAY ‘AG, show us ‘intent’ when you charge the others under Sedition Act.’

                                                           

AG Gani: Can't charge Ibrahim since no intent

Armageddon: Attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail said, "The Perkasa chief explained that his remark was not aimed at creating racial disharmony.”

 

He then quoted Ibrahim Ali as saying, “This is not a statement to cause any religious conflict but to defend the purity of Islam as stated in the laws.”

 

Apparently Abdul Gani already had a "court session" with Ibrahim and allow Ibrahim to twist his statement and ‘honourable judge Abdul Gani’ decided Ibrahim is innocent.

 

It’s a strange and questionable way of enforcing the law.

 

Ipohcrite: “It is better if the department takes one case to court and win, rather than bringing 10 cases to court and win only five,” said Abdul Gani.

 

But you must bring the case to court first before you have a chance of winning. If the AG's Chambers cannot do the job, you may hire someone like Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, or check around if any practising lawyer would like to prosecute Ibraham Ali.

 

I can assure you that there won't be a lack of takers, even pro bono.

 

Anonymous_3e86: Indeed, let the courts decide whether there was any intent. Isn't that what the courts are meant for, even if its credibility isn't what it used to be?

 

There are still some responsible judges out there who can decide without fear or favor.

 

Odysseus: Abdul Gani, please stop treating the public like idiots. You may be one but not us. If you decide not to charge Ibrahim because there is no intent, please show us the "intent" when you charged the others under Sedition Act.

 

Gerard Lourdesamy: But intent is irrelevant to a charge of sedition even if Ibrahim Ali claims to be defending Islam under Articles 3 and 11 (4) of the Constitution since the very nature of the statement had a seditious tendency as defined in section 3 (1) (d) and (e) of the Sedition Act 1948 and punishable under section 4 (1) of the same Act. The AG is not being truthful here.

 

JustAMalaysian: There are two limbs in both sections 505(b) and 505(b) in the Penal Code. In section 505(b)the first limb is "With intent to cause”, and the second limb is "or which is likely to cause".

 

In section 505(c), the first limb is "With intent to incite" and the second limb is "or which is likely to incite".

 

Why must the AG focus only on the first limb which is difficult to prove? The prosecution cannot read into the accused's mind but can infer intent by the actions, words and demeanour of the accused before, during and after the material time of offence.

 

The second limb of both sections does not require the prosecution to prove intent. Anything said or done by anyone “which is likely to cause...” is an offence.

 

The language used is plain and direct. I have a feeling the AG is trying to "mengkaburkan mata" and confuse the public. Very clever or shall I say cunning?

 

Kangkung: Abdul Gani, it amazes me the level you have to stoop to show your stupidity just to try save this Umno spokesperson.

 

Yes, it is always "without complete facts, information and report" when it concerns people connected to Umno but even with the minutest evidence you can drag those connected with the opposition to court.

 

You are practising selective prosecution and this is the clearest example of it.

 

Headhunter: A rather pathetic response from the AG. We all know that Ibrahim Ali is nothing but a s**t stirrer bent on causing mischief and racial disharmony.

 

We have seen opposition members charged for much lesser offence. This particular culprit is let off because he is protected by those in power.

 

Proarte: The AG's reasoning is to be expected. No right-thinking person in Malaysia regards the AG as independent. He is an Umno lackey and is merely following instructions.

 

Somewhat paradoxically I agree with the AG that Ibrahim Ali should not be charged. The reason is that I feel the Sedition Act is more oppressive than useful. The colonial masters who introduced it used it selectively to suppress dissent. Umno is merely doing the same.

 

It is a measure of the maturity and peace-loving nature of Christians in Malaysia that they have not responded in a negative or violent manner towards Umno proxy Perkasa's vile and disgusting threats to burn the Bible.

 

The exemplary manner in which non-Muslims have behaved despite repeated vile provocations by Umno proxies and right-wing Muslim groups in Malaysia is surely proof that the Sedition Act serves no useful purpose.

 

Kilgore: Abdul Gani is the most pathetic attorney-general in the known universe. His infantile, and obviously biased rationalisations, only confirm that 'justice' is the least of his concerns. If anyone is guilty of inciting national disharmony, it is Abdul Gani himself.

 

Turvy: Any law student would tell you that the legal intent, which Abdul Gani talks about is not a subjective question, because if it were so, then every criminal, whatever his crime, could say he did not intent to do whatever he is charged with.

 

In any case, it is not the AG's duty to decide whether the wrong is proved. He prosecutes if there is enough evidence. The words are all that he has to look at. The courts will decide if there was intent or not.

 

NCN: Can't you guys see that Abdul Gani is Ibrahim's defence counsel? Is he not defending Ibrahim? Wouldn't it be absurd to expect the defense counsel to bring charges against his own client?


The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now .

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.

ADS