Malaysia is one of Asia's biggest employers of foreign labour. But recently, cases of deaths, abuse and forced labour have come to light. What is going on? Who is protecting these migrant workers?
4 persons were arrested and charged in court – 1 for murder and 3 for abetting murder.
At the close of the prosecution case, the 3 were acquitted by the High Court without their defence being called – see the High Court Judgment below.
Questions arise about the prosecution and police when the 3 were ACQUITTED…Read the full judgment of the High Court below – extracts below show how prosecution failed to successfully adduce evidence against the 3 —to support the abetment charge – the company ownership details was also not tendered…WHY? That is the question? Why charge a person when you do not have ANY evidence OR you did not tender any EVIDENCE during trial to prove their connection to the murder?
Was there earlier witnesses – that ‘changed their mind’? Was there evidence that ‘disappeared”?
REMEMBER that one a person is charged and then acquitted – he/she cannot again in the future be charged again for the same offense? That is why prosecution, if they find that they do not have sufficient evidence will elect to apply for a DNAA (Discharge not amounting to an acquittal) – which means that LATER when the prosecution gets sufficient evidence, that person can be charged again…So, the question that arises is WHY did the prosecution charge the 3 in the first place? WHY did the prosecution in mid-trial when they discovered they did not have sufficient evidence to prove abutment to murder simply not apply for a DNAA …?
Let’s look briefly at some of the comments made in the High Court judgment (but please the full judgment below)-
‘…The prosecution should tender evidence to prove that the abettors had either instigated the 1st accused or had commanded him or had conspired with him or aided him in the murder of the deceased. However, during the trial sufficiently cogent circumstantial evidence was not given to support the abetments charges against all the said three accused persons……..The 2nd accused was only mentioned by the prosecution witnesses in relation to his arrest by the police, his identification by the investigating officer in court and the testing of his blood sample for the purpose of developing a DNA profile. It goes without saying that this type of evidence cannot by any stretch of the imagination connect him to the murder of the deceased…The 3rd accused was also mentioned by prosecution witnesses during the trial for the same reasons, i.e. he was arrested, a blood specimen was taken from him and he was identified in court. Apart from that, the only mention of the 3rd accused was made by P.W. 20 (Jambali anak Jali). I had referred to his evidence earlier when dealing with the circumstantial evidence against the 1st accused. P.W. 20 said that the 1st accused and 3rd accused had entered their land to threaten the longhouse residents. No other evidence linking the 3rd accused to the crime of abetting the murder of the deceased was adduced…. The 4th accused was mentioned by three witnesses in this trial, P.W. 19, P.W. 20 and the investigating officer, P.W. 28. However, none of the witnesses who mentioned him gave an iota of evidence to connect him to the crime in question. The prosecution did not tender any forensic evidence either to support the charge of abetment. P.W. 19 had given evidence that the deceased had been threatened. However, he never said that the 4th accused had threatened the deceased. He only said the deceased was threatened in relation to his work of defending the interests of the longhouse residents in a land dispute with the Tung Huat Plantation Company. The prosecution did not tender any evidence in respect of the ownership of this company.
In short, it looks like the prosecution FAILED to tender any evidence connecting to the offence. Normally, judges will seriously evaluate evidence …but here we find a judge struggling hard to find evidence to evaluate to determine whether the prosecution has managed to prove their case as required in a criminal trial…
What happened? Must there be an investigation of the prosecution officer? Must there be an investigation of the police?
Do we need to have SUHAKAM conduct an inquiry into this? A Royal Commission of Inquiry? Maybe the Attorney General need to look into this? Parliament Select Committee?
MOHAMAD FITRI PAUZI – well, he was subsequently convicted and sentenced to death. But why did this man kill Bill Kayong? Was it because he was paid to kill by another? Was he ordered by some ‘boss’ to kill? Or did he simply kill for some ‘personal reason’?
Mohd Fitri faces the mandatory death penalty – will he now reveal the TRUTH that will expose the guilt of others who ordered the killing of Bill Kayong? If the provision of such assistance that will lead to the identification and maybe prosecution of those who paid for the killing, ordered the killing or were involved in the killing will lead to a reduction of sentence …but mandatory death penalty cannot be reduced unlike a prison sentence. So really no motivation for Mohd Fitri to expose the truth, is there…Remember that the ‘bosses’ who paid for the killing or ordered the killing could still be threatening Mohd Fitri with death/injury to himself…his family members…Well, this is all THEORY…possibilities…nothing more..
The same also with the Altantuya case – are we sure that we have arrested, tried and c onvicted ALL that brought about the MURDER of that woman?
Like Bill Kayong, many human rights defenders face threat and even death as they struggle to uphold the cause of justice without fear or favour …How many human rights defenders have been killed or shot in Malaysia – some say that in Sarawak, there has been about 10 such cases – time for us to REMEMBER these human rights defenders who gave their life in the struggle for Human Rights…
Source : http://charleshector.blogspot.com/…/hr-defender-bill-kayong…
Address: Wisma MTUC,10-5, Jalan USJ 9/5T, 47620 Subang Jaya,Selangor | Tel: 03-80242953 | Fax: 03-80243225 | Email: sgmtuc@gmail.com.com