Holding a watching brief, Karpal Singh, counsel for the former deputy prime minister, made an application this morning to make a submission.

Karpal cited several cases to support his application and assured the court that he would in no way disrupt the duties of the prosecution but instead would assist and complement them.

However, counsel for Rahim, K Kumaraendran, objected to the application, saying that such actions were only allowed in civil cases, not in a criminal court.

He stressed that such action was only permitted in exceptional cases or when the court was in doubt as to the law and fact, in which case, the court may invite the counsel holding a watching brief to make submissions.

"We are all very well-versed in terms of law and fact," said Kumaraendran, adding that in this instance, Karpal may advance his own interest and handle the submission with vengeance.

At this point, Karpal interjected: "I take offence to that statement. I never have vengeance".

Prosecution objects

Deputy public prosecutor Sallehuddin Saidin also objected to the application, saying that in a criminal case, there must be only two parties, the State or Public Prosecutor and the accused.

The responsibility of protecting the complainant's interest has come under the jurisdiction of the state, he added.

He submitted that Rahim's case had already been heard in a lower court and there was no doubt or confusion as to the facts of the case or the law.

Furthermore, the accused had pleaded guilty and had been found guilty, Sallehuddin said.

He said what was before the court today was only an appeal against the sentence (Former IGP ill, appeal put off, Sept 18).

Sallehuddin said he did not need any assistance and could proceed with prosecution's cross-appeal on his own since the case under Section 323 of the Penal Code was a straightforward case.

He assured Karpal that the interest of the complainant would be protected to the best of his (Sallehuddin) ability and the course of justice would be dispensed with accordingly.

Insisting that he did not need Karpal's assistance, Sallehuddin cited sections 376 (1) and 377 of the Criminal Procedure Code which states that the Attorney-General or Public Prosecutor had complete control and direction of case in the court.

Sallehuddin assured that justice would be done and the accused punished accordingly.

No chance to submit

Karpal insisted that lawyers holding watching briefs can make submissions either in a criminal or civil, sessions or appellate court. He maintained that he will not take the role of the prosecution but will assist them. He emphasised that this was not a simple case under Section 323 of the Penal Code.

Karpal said that months ago, he was actively involved in the royal commission of enquiry into Anwar's black eye to the extent of questioning the accused, so there was no reason why he could not make submissions in the court today.

At one juncture, Kumaraendran accused Karpal of being emotional and wanting to usurp the prosecution's role, to which Karpal objected.

Karpal said that the complainant's counsel was not given a chance in the lower court to make a submission or else the sentence meted out to the accused would have been higher and more deserving of the crime.

"Justice must not only be done but the manifestation of it must be seen to be done," said Karpal.

Presiding judge Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin is expected to rule on Karpal's application when the court resumes at 3pm.