Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz.,the defactor Law Minister alleged called Thai pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand , is alleged a contempt of court
(L)Teoh family lawyer Karpal Singh , (r) Thai pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand, the director of the Thai Ministry of Justice's Central Institute of Forensic Science
The Coroner’s Court investigating the death of Teoh Beng Hock today fixed May 21 to deliver its decision as to whether to grant leave for contempt proceedings against Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz.
Coroner Azmil Muntapha Abas fixed the date after hearing submissions from both Senior Federal Counsel Amarjeet Singh, who represented the Attorney-General and Teoh family lawyer Karpal Singh.
The application for leave to commit the minister for contempt was filed by Teoh's brother, Meng Kee in response to statements made by Nazri in an interview given to Hazlan Zakaria, a reporter with the online news portal Malaysiakini on April 11.
Nazri had called Thai pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand, the director of the Thai Ministry of Justice's Central Institute of Forensic Science a "liar" when commenting on her statement that she was unable to testify in the inquest due to political pressure put on her by the Malaysian government through "informal channels".
Nazri was reported to have told Hazlan: "She is a liar! She lied in the inquest and she is lying now."
Amarjeet submitted today that leave should not be granted as:
>> the application was incomplete as it did not enclose Hazlan’s article.
"Without the article, there is no charge. What we have is merely a charge, and the basis of the charge is not there. Here we are in the dark as to what the article says as that crucial piece of evidence is missing," he said.
>> contempt proceedings are penal in nature and the issue in contempt must be clearly identified.
"You cannot expect the respondent (Nazri) to search for the issue. You must identify the issue - what is it that the magistrate must decide," he said.
>> judges are different from normal witnesses, as they are less likely to be affected by media reports than normal witnesses.
As such, he said Azmil is less likely to be influenced by the Malaysiakini report which contained the statement.
Amarjeet distinguished this from other cases which referred to contemptuous words carried in the media, such as in newspapers.
"What Nazri said to Hazlan is between them, and unlike a newspaper, which everyone has access to, one has to subscribe to Malaysiakini, where access is limited as online access is limited," said Amarjeet.
"In this case, if there is anyone who committed contempt, it is Malaysiakini," he quipped.
Amarjeet also submitted that unlike testimony from ordinary witnesses, Pornthip’s testimony as an expert witness was of a different type, and as such the allegations of lying did not apply.
"Dr Pornthip is giving opinion evidence as an expert. It (such testimony) cannot be subject to whether they lied as an opinion is subjective."
"So even if the minister called her a liar, it makes no difference as she came in to give opinion evidence and not factual evidence," added Amarjeet.
Meanwhile, Karpal in his submissions, said the action should not have had to wait for an application by Meng Kee.
He said the A-G should have filed contempt proceedings on its own initiative if it really was "the guardian of the public interest" as it submitted last week when applying to intervene.
"The A-G should have done it as the ‘guardian of the public interest' as it is in the public interest to ensure that no one commits contempt," said Karpal who also rebutted Amarjeet's claim that the application was incomplete as it did not enclose Hazlan’s article.
"The article and the day it appeared and where it appeared was identified," said Karpal, who also rebutted Amarjeet’s argument that Pornthip’s submissions were subjective opinions.
"It is not an opinion, it is evidence in court," he said, adding that Pornthip’s earlier testimony was crucial to the inquest.
"Pornthip said there was an 80% probability that Beng Hock’s death was a homicide. Isn’t that a specific issue within what the court must decide?" he asked.
"Witnesses are an integral part of the legal process and must be free of interference of any kind, isn’t what the minister said an interference," he asked, adding that Nazri had not repented but had challenged Karpal to cite him for contempt.
"This minister said ‘if he wants to cite, cite lah. Let the court decide’. (So) why is the AG coming in defence of this minister? They should let the court decide. It is not for him or me to decide. It is for the court to decide," said Karpal.
"The minister must be called here to deny what was said in that application. The minister is more than capable of defending himself. Let him come here," said Karpal, who urged Azmil to decide fairly and "without fear or favour, in the spirit it ought to be decided."
