Senior lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah has committed contempt of court by disclosing the court’s in camera evidence to the public.

 

Universiti Malaya law don Gurdial Singh Nijar said when a court orders evidence to be given in camera, such details cannot be disclosed outside the courtroom.

 

In camera judicial proceeding is when the hearing is done before the judge where the public and the press are excluded from the courtroom.

 

"That's why the evidence cannot be reported by newspapers and everybody else. When this evidence is disclosed to the public, the court order is violated," he told Malaysiakini .

 

"This constitutes contempt of the court which is punishable on conviction with imprisonment, a fine or both."

 

Gurdial ( right ) was commenting on Shafee, who at a forum last Tuesday organised by Umno Youth's Akademi Kepimpinan Kapten Hussein (Akhi), had gone into graphic details describing the foreplay and the sexual act between Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim and his former aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

 

Shafee, who was hired by the Attorney-General’s Chambers to prosecute the case, had told the forum that the lurid details were given by the complainant, Saiful, in camera.

 

Gurdial added that it was for the attorney-general to institute proceedings for contempt.

 

The matter can also be brought to the attention of the court by another person interested in the proceedings or who comes to know of the contempt, he said.

 

"The court can also initiate proceedings and formulate charges against any person violating the court order on its own initiative."

 

‘Character assassination’

 

Meanwhile, lawyer and constitutional expert Syahredzan Johan described Shafee's revelation of the in camera evidence as "character assassination disguised as a legal discussion".

 

According to Syahredzan, there were reasons why the proceedings were in camera.

 

" You do not want that particular aspect of proceedings to be made public.

 

"So, it should not be open to lawyers who are involved in the case - be it the deputy public prosecutor or defence counsel - to reveal what was part of the in camera evidence to the public," he told Malaysiakini .

 

Syahredzan ( right ) added that this would only defeat the whole purpose of such court proceedings.

 

When told that details of the in camera evidence are available should one do a file search in the court system, Syahredzan said even so, one would actually need to take the trouble to do such a search.