UPDATED 12.25PM | Lawyer Siti Kasim was acquitted over a charge of obstructing the duties of a public servant at a Federal Territories Islamic Religious Department (Jawi) raid on a transgender event in 2016.

Kuala Lumpur magistrate Tawfiq Affandy Chin this morning ruled that the prosecution did not establish a prima facie case against the activist, whose real name is Siti Zabedah Kasim.

On June 23, 2017, Siti claimed trial to the charge under Section 186 of the Penal Code, which concerns "obstructing a public servant in the discharge of his public functions".

The raid in question occurred during a transwomen event in April 2016, at the Renaissance Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, where Siti was present as a guest.

Today’s decision came at the end of the prosecution’s case, following a trial that saw six prosecution witnesses take the stand.

Fourth prosecution witness, Jawi enforcement officer Siti Nor Jihan Saleh @ Md Ghazali, was the one who was allegedly obstructed from performing her official duty during the 2016 raid.

During the open-court proceedings today, Tawfiq ruled that the charge against Siti was defective because it did not specifically state how the accused was alleged to have obstructed Siti Nor Jihan from carrying out her duty.

The magistrate pointed out that the charge also did not state clearly how Siti’s action leaned towards an actual offence, among others.

'Court views the charge as defective'

“The charge did not state specifically the form of obstruction by the accused during the incident.

“Even though the DPP has the power to amend the charge, but there has been no such action (to apply to amend the charge).

“The court is of the view that the charge is defective and had not been corrected at this stage,” Tawfiz said as Siti looked on from the dock.

The magistrate noted that the raid itself was procedurally improper, as it required a warrant, especially when the 2016 dinner was a private event.

Tawfiq also noted that video evidence tendered during the trial showed that Siti’s action during the raid was consistent with that of a lawyer performing her duty to advise her client.

“From the video recording (of the raid), the accused’s action is more towards that of a lawyer carrying out her duty towards her client on a disputed legal issue regarding the warrant of arrest (allegedly not produced during the raid).

“As the accused was a lawyer (carrying out her duty as counsel) during the incident, the (Jawi) officers should have carried out their duties with more “hemat” (prudence)," he said. 

“The court also found that during the operation, SP4 (fourth prosecution witness Siti Nor Jihan) and the other Jawi officers managed to seize items (at the site) without obstruction from the accused.

“The video showed that Jawi (officers) entered the (dinner) hall easily,” Tawfiq added.

When met after the proceedings today, DPP Nur Ashikin Mokhtar said that she will discuss with the prosecution on whether to appeal the verdict.

Nur Ashikin added that the prosecution has 14 days from today to file any notice of appeal.

Defence counsel Rajsurian Pillai (above, left) and Suzana Norlihan Alias appeared for Siti.

Lawyer Arik Zakri Abdul Kadir and Tay Kit Hoo held a watching brief for Jawi and the Malaysian Bar respectively.

In Siti’s press statement today, the activist said the verdict was a vindication for her, as she was merely performing her duty as a lawyer to her client during the 2016 raid.

“I was only carrying out my duty as a lawyer during the dinner that night.

“People asked why there was a lawyer at the dinner. This is because the transgender community are always harassed by the authorities, even though they are only carrying on with their lives just like other people,” Siti added.

The lawyer expressed hope that today’s verdict would serve as a lesson to the authorities to abide by the law and not get involved in any alleged abuse of power.

She also hoped that with today’s ruling, the authorities would change the way they deal with every level of society, regardless of race, religion, gender or status.


Editor's note: Based on legal advice, the commenting feature for the above article has been disabled.