IGP, questioning court decisions is not contempt

comments     Yoursay     Published     Updated

YOURSAY ‘Wasn't there a very senior cop who disobeyed a court order?’

IGP: Quit raising motive for Altantuya's murder

 

Aries46: It was inspector-general of police Khalid Abu Bakar himself that asserted that police do establish reasons when crimes are investigated.

 

Now that two of his own men face the gallows for a crime where reasons are sorely lacking and essential leads to likely motive ignored, it is astonishing that Khalid sees fit to warn against those that clamour for motive to be probed.

 

And ironically he dismisses Abdul Razak Baginda's claim that the convicted duo are simply trigger-happy cops as some cops are known to be, but laments that we may never know the motive as it may forever be shrouded in secrecy.

 

Silencing the truth-seekers may give some relief to the handful that want to suppress the truth, but it denies true justice to Altantuya Shaariibuu and her loved ones and the two cops that face the hangman's noose.

 

As far as the court of public opinion is concerned, "Justice must not only be done but also seen to be done".

 

Anonymous_1375693422: Is there any murder trial where questions about motive cannot be asked?

 

The police, prosecutors and judges who avoided the issue of motive must be assumed to be following orders from the higher up. Sure, it is sad that they have seriously compromised their integrity and professionalism.

 

But we should also ask who gave the orders and why. And why do we have, or keep these people, as our national leaders.

 

Rojak: Contempt of court in most common law countries covers deliberate insolence, especially during trial proceedings, and wilful disobedience of a court order. It does not preclude commenting on and discussing judicial decisions.

 

Whatever one's opinion on this particular case, discussing the law is as much a part of democracy as discussing political policies.

 

Malaysia Ku: Indeed, does the police chief know the law? How is it contempt of court when case is already closed?

 

Anonymous_1408265047: I don't think I have heard so much piffle in such a short statement. The only way there could be contempt of court is if the Supreme Court specifically placed a restriction on the discussion of the motive for the murder of Altantuya.

 

The IGP is trying to prevent free speech because he is embarrassed that such a massive failure of the legal and policing system is being openly discussed.

 

Odin: Khalid, it is a fact that none of the courts looked into the motive, which has been implied to be inconsequential. Fine.

 

It is obvious that the sole purpose of the proceedings was to convict the two policemen. That has been achieved, while others remain free. Well done, clap, clap. But hold it.

 

The concerned, mentally normal hoi-polloi have every right to demand to know what the motive was, for it simply boggles the imagination, it defies logic and it beggars belief, that the two policemen would simply snatch a woman unknown to them and exterminate her in a most gruesome manner.

 

There must be a reason they did it - and that reason cannot be because of insanity. The concerned, mentally normal hoi polloi want to know. And that desire of theirs cannot be considered contempt of court.

 

Speaking of contempt of court, wasn't there a very senior police officer who recently disobeyed a court order?

 

Clongviews: The IGP should at best remain neutral and not issue warnings on contempt as two of his men are involved.

 

He should go after Abdul Razak Baginda for insulting PDRM (Royal Malaysian Police) calling his two men and those involved in the deaths of detainees as "rogue police".

 

Gerard Lourdesamy: There is no contempt of court because the proceedings have come to an end with the judgment of the Federal Court. The matter is no longer sub judice either as there is no further right of appeal.

 

The decision of the Federal Court is binding on the parties to the appeal but not necessarily the public at large. Contempt only arises if there is intent to disobey the order or decision of the court or to interfere with the administration of justice.

 

Commenting on the lack of motive does not touch on the decision of the court because motive is irrelevant to a charge of murder and the court has said as much in its judgment.

 

Neither is it seditious because nobody is disputing the decision of the court or imputing bias or impropriety or fraud in the decision.

 

Malaccan: Why is asking about the motive of a murder contempt of court? And what business is it of the PDRM or the IGP to intervene in what the public discusses?

 

It makes it even more suspicious for the IGP to suppress this question when his own men were convicted of the Altantuya murder.

 

Why has the IGP suddenly become the protector of the court against contempt when he has earlier refusing to carry out the court's order? It’s ironic the IGP is now threatening citizens when he should have arrested himself for contempt.

 

What citizens think and ask is none of the IGP's business. He is not required or duty bound to police our thoughts. It is in the public sphere for such things to be bandied around and discussed.

 

It would be better if the IGP assures citizens that members of the PDRM do simply go around killing innocent people as implied by Razak Baginda.

 

Dumno: Well Khalid, you can never stop an inquisitive mind. As long there are doubts, people will seek an answer. Being threatened for having an inquisitive mind will only make the coffee-table talk louder.


 

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.



Malaysiakini
news and views that matter


Sign In