An article by Frank G. Anderson at UPI Asia.com (27 November 2009: “Recurring amnesia in Thailand”) is a useful reminder of the failures of the judicial system in Thailand. As Frank points out, “The country’s judicial system, from law enforcement to the final appeals court, is rife with lack of protection against violations of human and civil rights.” He also observes that: “Almost all members of society are aware that the only way to avoid injustice is to stay away from any type of cause to begin with.” And, PPT would add, everyone knows that “justice” is a essentially a commodity, with a political or monetary price tag.

Readers might also be interested in Harrison George’s “Thai rights” at Prachatai (27 November 2009).

November 27, 2009

Two different parts in Bala’s SD, explains PI’s lawyer, Americk Singh Sidhu

The first statutory declaration signed by controversial private eye P Balasubramaniam consists of two parts – one on what was told to him and the other involves what he personally saw himself.

According to Balasubramaniam’s lawyer, Americk Singh Sidhu (left), the first part involves statements that the private investigator was in a position to ascertain their truth.

“He was therefore alluding to the fact that these statements were made to him, but was not alluding to the truth of those statements.”

This include where Balasubramaniam said he was told about the fact that Najib and murdered Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu had a relationship.

“The second part of Bala’s first SD reflects what he experienced himself. This would be not be regarded as hearsay evidence.”

Examples are the message Balasubramaniam saw on Abdul Razak Baginda’s mobile phone on the day the political analyst was arrested.

The SMS message, purportedly from Najib Abdul Razak, informing Razak Baginda that the then deputy prime minister was “seeing the IGP (inspector-general of police) at 11am that day and to be cool”.

Razak Baginda, known to be Najib’s close confidant, was later freed from the charge of abetting the murder of his former lover Altantuya. Americk also said that the Altantuya trial raised more questions than answers and where certain evidence was not brought to court.

“As the matter stands, we have two highly trained members of the Special Action Force killing a Mongolian national for no apparent reason. This is what was bothering Bala at the time he made his first SD.”

The following is the final of a three-part interview:

Malaysiakini: When you recorded Bala’s first SD, did you feel he was telling you the truth?

Americk: I have said this before. I have no reason to doubt the contents of Bala’s first statutory declaration (SD). However, it must be borne in mind that there are actually two parts to Bala’s first SD.

The first part involves statements that Bala says were told to him by third parties. Bala himself cannot verify the truth of these statements. That is why I said at the first press conference that these statements reflect exactly that.

All Bala was saying is that these statements were made to him and that he perceived them with his own senses. He was therefore alluding to the fact that these statements were made to him, but was not alluding to the truth of those statements.

In legal parlance these statements were hearsay and would not be admissible as evidence in a court of law until and unless they could be supported by other independent evidence and even if they were, the weight of this combined evidence is something a judge would have to consider before accepting or rejecting it.

Examples of statements under this category would include the following:

1) That Altantuya had a relationship with Najib.

2) That Razak Baginda was introduced to Altantuya by Najib at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.

3) That Altantuya was promised a commission of US$500,000 for her services in the Scorpene submarine deal.

The second part of Bala’s first SD reflects what he experienced himself. This would be not be regarded as hearsay evidence. Examples of these statements include the following:

1) That he had contact with Altantuya on a number of occasions in October 2006.

2) That Razak Baginda hired him to keep Altantuya away from him.

3) That he saw Azilah (Hadri) and Sirul (Azhar Umar) bundle Altantuya into a car outside Razak Baginda’s house on the night of Oct 19, 2006.

4) That Altantuya, at that time and place, had asked Bala to arrange for her to see Najib.

5) That Bala had, on Oct 21, 2006, received a call on his mobile phone from Musa (Mohd) Safri whilst he was outside the front gate of Razak Baginda’s house, asking to speak to the police officer who was there attempting to persuade three of Altantuya’s friends to disperse.

6) That Bala had given evidence for the prosecution in the Altantuya murder trial and had not been asked a number of very pertinent questions.

7) That Bala had himself seen a message on Razak Baginda’s mobile phone (the day Razak Baginda was arrested), purportedly from Najib, informing Razak Baginda that he was “seeing the IGP at 11am that day and to be cool”.

It is also pertinent to note that Razak Baginda (left) had every opportunity of denying all Bala had said in his first SD, at the press conference he called after his acquittal. However, he chose not to say anything except that he had given his statement to the police.

If there is any doubt as to the veracity of Bala’s first SD, this can be tested by comparing it to two other statements recorded from him.

The first statement was recorded by the investigating officers in the Altantuya murder case. This is the statement Bala complained of in his press conference and first SD. He alleged that all ’sensitive’ information he had given the police was erased from that statement.

The second statement was given to senior federal counsel Sallehuddin (Saidin) just prior to the commencement of Altantuya’s murder trial. It must be remembered Sallehuddin was one of the prosecutors on the first prosecution team but dropped when the second prosecution team was mustered.

According to Bala, this second statement is 76 pages long and details everything that appeared in his first SD. If the police are really keen in looking into this whole matter again to determine the truth, my suggestion would be to obtain copies of both these statements and compare them to the contents of his first SD. After all, they were prepared by the prosecuting authorities and should be readily available to the police.

What prompted Bala into making the first SD?

Americk: As Bala pointed out, he was a little frustrated that the police had not investigated the murder properly and that the prosecution had not conducted their case appropriately. He had been called to give evidence as a prosecution witness but was not asked a number or relevant questions.

He felt the police and the prosecution were trying to cover up the possible involvement of other parties in this murder.There is no doubt Azilah and Sirul shot Altantuya in the head and blew her body up with C4 explosives. The court has already found them guilty.

There is also available on the Internet a full confession under s.113(1)(a)(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, signed by Sirul and dated the 9.11.2006 (Travers report no. 7380/06) in which he has detailed the circumstances in which he and Azilah committed this murder.

There is also a mention of a promise of a reward of RM100,000 for these services. This statement was recorded by one inspector Nom Phot Prack Dit at Bukit Aman. This statement was not allowed to be tendered at the murder trial.Azilah and Sirul did not give evidence under oath in their defence and therefore avoided any cross-examination on motive.

As the matter stands, we have two highly trained members of the Special Action Force killing a Mongolian national for no apparent reason.

This is what was bothering Bala at the time he made his first SD.In his experience as a police officer attached to the Special Branch, he found it rather odd that two policemen would kill someone without receiving instructions to do so from their superiors.

In this case Azilah (right) and Sirul were Najib’s bodyguards and were supposed to take instructions from Musa Safri, Najib’s ADC (aide-de-camp). Bala felt Musa Safri, at least, should have been called to the stand to testify.

Do you think the Altantuya murder trial was conducted in a fair manner?

Americk: Fair to who?

I think the first question that ought to be asked is why it was necessary to change all the players in this trial even before it started? No doubt this is the prerogative of the accused in their choice of counsel, and of course the Attorney General’s Chambers in the appointment of prosecutors it feels more suitable. Of course a judge can be changed as well, but all three parties at once seems a little odd.

As the trial proceeded, it became obvious that there was a concerted effort by the prosecution and the defence to prevent any highly fragile evidence from being adduced. This became even more obvious during the questioning of Altantuya’s cousin, Burmaa Oyunchimeg, by Karpal Singh, who was holding a watching brief for Altantuya’s family.

Burmaa (left), whilst being questioned by the prosecution had mentioned a photograph shown to her by Altantuya that showed Altantuya, Razak Baginda and a senior government official at a meal. The prosecution and the defence vehemently objected to the eventual answer that Burmaa gave, ie that the senior government official was Najib.

This episode begs the question as to whose interests the defence was supposed to have been protecting? Certainly not their own clients.

It is also interesting to remember Sirul’s statement from the dock at the end of the trial. He said, and I quote, “A black sheep that has to be sacrificed to protect unnamed people who have never been brought to court or faced questioning”.

I think that says it all.

This time last year the yellow-shirted royalists calling themselves the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) decided to occupy Bangkok’s airports, causing disruption to hundreds of thousands of travelers and billions of baht damage to the economy. PAD justified this occupation in the same way that they did their previous actions: defeating the Thaksin regime.

With the military leadership refusing to act against illegal actions – in effect, mutiny – and the judiciary mobilized to ban more pro-Thaksin political parties, the current government was cobbled together by a palace-military cabal intent on getting their supporters into power despite repeated election defeats.

On this anniversary, it is intersting to see that the Airports of Thailand is defending itself (Bangkok Post, 27 November 2009: “AoT took action on blockade”) against claims that it hasn’t acted against PAD.

Not so says Airports of Thailand President Serirat Prasutanond. He says that the AoT had “brought both criminal and civil lawsuits against 12 PAD leaders for urging supporters to lay siege to the two Bangkok airports in November last year.” The AoT “had filed a civil lawsuit against 12 PAD leaders for blockading the two airports … and demanded 150 million baht in compensation from them.”

The court  accepted the lawsuit and hearings would begin in August next year. It seems that a red shirt gets the judiciary moving and yellow slows it to a crawl.

Lord Woolman granted Scotland’s first Civil Law McKenzie Friend request FORTY YEARS after McKenzie Friends were first introduced to UK courts as a result of the 1970 McKenzie v McKenzie decision which set a legal precedent for court users in England & Wales to request and receive the invaluable assistance of a McKenzie Friend, Scotland’s Court of Session has finally, albeit grudgingly fallen into line with the rest of the country and many international jurisdictions by granting what many say is the first successful request for a McKenzie Friend to appear in Scotland’s civil courts.

The unexpected turn of events in the Court of Session last Tuesday, 17th November 2009 saw the sitting judge, Lord Woolman allow the attendance of Scotland’s first ever McKenzie Friend in a long running civil damages action which named Motherwell College, North Lanarkshire Council & Edinburgh Law firm Simpson & Marwick as defenders. The case, a medical injury claim recently heard ‘potentially explosive allegations’ against the College from the witness box.

A spokeswoman for the Scottish Courts Service confirmed the first use of a McKenzie Friend in Scotland, issuing the following brief statement : “I confirm [the party litigant] was allowed to be assisted in the manner associated with the term “McKenzie Friend”. [The litigant's] supporter was advised by the Court as to the nature of his role and is seated behind [the litigant] in court in the place where an instructing agent (solicitor) would sit.”

The Scottish Courts Service was further asked to confirm this was the first successful use of a McKenzie Friend in a civil damages action in Scotland. However, the SCS said they did not keep such statistics or data, and therefore could not confirm one way or another.

A senior official of one of Scotland’s consumer organisations welcomed Lord Woolman’s decision to allow the use of a McKenzie Friend. He said : “The rights of party litigants in Scotland’s civil courts have been greatly enhanced by Lord Woolman’s decision allowing what we understand to be the first ever use of a McKenzie Friend in a Scottish court. We hope this will be the first of many successful applications to the Scottish courts for the use of McKenzie Friends in cases were consumers have found it difficult or too costly to obtain the services of a solicitor to represent their legal interests.”

However, Lord Woolman’s decision in requiring the McKenzie Friend to ‘sit behind’ the party litigant came in for criticism, due to the fact that in England & Wales, and most international jurisdictions were McKenzie Friends are allowed, the party litigant requesting the advice & assistance of a McKenzie Friend usually find their McKenzie Friend sits beside them, rather than behind them.

A senior barrister from England said today : “I have often attended hearings where McKenzie Friends have assisted party litigants, seated next to them. I have not attended a hearing where an English court has insisted or required that a McKenzie Friend must sit behind their party litigant. Such a seating arrangement would be counterproductive to the litigant who would be put in a position of having to constantly turn around, seeking advice on what to say or asking to see notes taken by the McKenzie Friend. I would think the judge’s patience would fray a little at such a constant head turning prospect, and therefore on that basis I would have to say your Scottish judge got it wrong on who sits where.”

A former party litigant whose experiences were recently reported in a Consumer report on Scotland’s Civil Courts today said : “I found the entire system stacked against me in court and it will come as no surprise I lost. If I had been able to use a McKenzie Friend I might have won my case, or at least come to a settlement but the judge in my case said I could not have a McKenzie Friend. The lawyers laughed at me when I was forced to drop my case and to this day I feel very bitter about it.”

He continued : “Where a Scotsman living in England or Wales, can enter an English court with a right to have a McKenzie Friend by his side to help him in his hour of need, yet a Scotsman living in Scotland asking for the help of a McKenzie Friend will still have to face the discretion of individual courts who may seat his McKenzie Friend miles away to the rear .. is not fair. This lack of fairness has to be put right.”

Lord Gill recommended McKenzie Friends be introduced in his Civil Courts Review. In the recent Civil Courts Review, conducted by Scotland’s Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Brian Gill recommended that McKenzie Friends should be introduced in Scotland, not only being allowed to sit beside a litigant but also to be granted a right of audience in some circumstances, to speak for litigants. However, Lord Gill’s detailed recommendations on the introduction & application of McKenzie Friends in Scotland’s courts conflicts severely with claims made by the Lord President to Holyrood’s Petitions Committee, where Lord Hamilton claimed that such assistance as provided by McKenzie Friends had always existed in Scotland, when in fact, no recorded use of McKenzie Friends in Scottish Civil Courts has taken place until now, this now confirmed by the Scottish Courts Service itself.

You can read my earlier articles on Lord Gill’s recommendations for the introduction of McKenzie Friends in Scotland, here : Scots Law ’shake up’ as Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review supports McKenzie Friends, Class Actions & wider access to justice for all

You can read my earlier reports on the battle to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland here : McKenzie Friends for Scotland – A battle worthy of a McKenzie Friend

As legal experts in Scotland continue to assess the impact of Lord Woolman’s ruling on McKenzie Friends, and the precedent the decision has now established, the race is now on to set rules and guidance for the Scottish Courts on the general application & acceptance of McKenzie Friends to provide unrepresented party litigants with advice & assistance during court appearances.

A legal insider pointed out today that in England & Wales, as soon as a litigant makes a request to have a McKenzie Friend assist their litigation, the English courts must consider that request on a Human Rights basis, as contained in the Lord President of the Family Division’s guidance to the English Courts, which clearly states :

• When considering any request for the assistance of a McKenzie Friend, the Human Rights Act 1998 Sch 1 Part 1 Article 6 is engaged; the court should consider the matter judicially, allowing the litigant reasonable opportunity to develop the argument in favour of the request.

• The litigant in person should not be required to justify his desire to have a McKenzie Friend ; in the event of objection, it is for the objecting party to rebut the presumption in favour of allowing the MF to attend.

• A favourable decision by the court, allowing the assistance of a McKenzie Friend, should be regarded as final and not as something which another party can ask the court to revisit later, save on the ground of misconduct by the McKenzie Friend or on the ground that the MF’s continuing presence will impede the efficient administration of justice.

What a McKenzie Friend May Do :

• Provide moral support for the litigant
• Take notes
• Help with case papers
• Quietly give advice on : points of law or procedure ; issues that the litigant may wish to raise in court & questions the litigant may wish to ask witnesses.

What a McKenzie Friend May Not Do :

• A McKenzie Friend has no right to act on behalf of a litigant in person. It is the right of the litigant who wishes to do so to have the assistance of a McKenzie Friend.

• A McKenzie Friend is not entitled to address the court, nor examine any witnesses. A McKenzie Friend who does so becomes an advocate and requires the grant of a right of audience.

• A McKenzie Friend may not act as the agent of the litigant in relation to the proceedings nor manage the litigant’s case outside court, for example, by signing court documents.

The full guidance from the Lord President of the Family Division on the use of McKenzie Friends in England & Wales can be downloaded here : President’s Guidance: McKenzie Friends

One of the most important issues with regard to the use of McKenzie Friends in England & Wales, is that when a litigant makes a request for a McKenzie Friend, the request is considered with regard to Article 6 of Human Rights legislation. Currently, this is not the case in Scotland, and as yet, no guidance has been released from the Lord President’s office addressing these issues.

This Human Right of a McKenzie Friend to the unrepresented people across our country must not be separated by the hills of the Scottish Borders, simply on the basis the Scottish legal establishment, and the legal profession feel they will lose control over the courts and perhaps more importantly to them, control over access to justice and law firms profits.

Given the confused and contradictory claims by the Lord President, Lord Hamilton and the Scottish Government in its responses to the McKenzie Friend petition, and Lord Woolman’s following to the letter of Lord Hamilton’s ‘sit behind & far away’ policy, a right and entitlement to a McKenzie Friend in Scottish Law is long overdue and can no longer be allowed to remain ‘in the the gift’ of the Court. Give Scots the right of a McKenzie Friend.

My Fellow Citizens,

I extend my warmest greetings to all of you on the eve of the 60th Law Day of our country. The legal and judicial fraternity of our country, as well as people at large, celebrate November 26 of each year as National Law Day because it was on this day in 1949 the Constituent Assembly of India had adopted our Constitution, which subsequently came into effect on January 26, 1950.

Law Day is an occasion on which we pay our humble tribute to the unique vision and genius of the framers of our Constitution. It prompts us to reflect upon and renew our pledge to protect, preserve and extend the values enshrined in our Constitution. The very first goal of the Constitution, is to secure justice to all — social, economic and political. This mandate not only shapes the rights of the people but also serves as a command to all those who wield authority in the name of the State. As the head of the Indian judicial system, it is my duty to keep the nation informed about the state of affairs in this branch of government.

An independent, accessible and efficient justice-delivery system is a pre-requisite for maintaining healthy democratic traditions and pursuing equitable development policies. In the last six decades Indian courts have played a leading role in protecting constitutional values and upholding the rule of law in our country. The vital social role of the courts has been strengthened by the creative reading of ideas such as ‘equal protection before the law’ and ‘personal liberty’. Especially with the evolution of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) movement over the last three decades, the understanding of rights has expanded in many directions. From conferring guarantees of a civil-political nature, the fundamental rights have been interpreted to include positive socio-economic obligations on the State. This means that the courts of law are unique spaces where just solutions are devised, in spite of the socio-economic inequalities between the litigants.

JUSTICE KG BALAKRISHNAN CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

India is a diverse country where we are still grappling with social stratification and discrimination on the grounds of caste, religion, gender, language, race and ethnicity among other factors. Conflicts that arise out of such identity-based differences or those related to the distribution of material resources are often very complicated since they involve multiple interest groups. Adjudicating such disputes often calls for a departure from the norm of adversarial litigation and the judges have accordingly devised procedural innovations to respond to the needs of litigants. This means that the role of a judge is not only that of applying the existing rules in a mechanical manner but also interpreting them in a creative manner in order to pursue the ends of justice.

I am deeply gratified by the trust and confidence that the people of this country repose in our judicial system. About 1.8 crore fresh cases had been filed in Indian courts in 2008, reflecting a steady increase in the rate of institution of fresh proceedings over the years. Against this, approximately 14,000 judges disposed of about 1.7 crore cases in 2008, demonstrating a disposal rate of about 1,200 cases per year by each judge. This was achieved notwithstanding the severe shortage of judges and their very heavy work load, abysmal infrastructure and a very challenging environment.

In all, Indian courts processed some 4.8 crore cases in 2008 — which is one of the largest volume of cases faced by any national judicial system in the world. Expert studies have suggested that our judicial strength is only very minimal and large expansion is required to dispose of this case-load. It is therefore quite natural that most cases take several years to be completed. Such is the shortage of judicial officers that, on average, an Indian judge has a total of about 25 minutes to devote to each case.

A significant consequence of the severe shortage of judges is that a substantial number of poor people are unable to obtain the protection of courts to preserve and strengthen their rights. This ‘docket exclusion’ does not bode well for the country as affected people may turn to alternative (including violent) means for securing their rights. On the contrary, there is an urgent need to promote ‘docket inclusion’. There is also a widespread perception that many people are being deterred from approaching the courts on account of apprehensions about undue delay in the delivery of justice. This may indeed be true in some parts of the country where the number of civil cases being instituted are very low in proportion to their respective population-levels. Therefore, any meaningful agenda for judicial reforms must account for the twin problems of high pendency levels as well as the limited access to justice for some sections of society.

This means that even as we devise strategies to combat the existing backlog, we must also prepare for the further expansion of court dockets in the coming years. With gradual improvements in development indicators such as income-levels, access to education and healthcare, we should expect the previously marginalized sections to approach the judicial system in larger numbers, enhancing “docket inclusion”.

In many cases, the undue delay in disposal is a consequence of hurdles placed in the procedural steps involved in litigation. In the course of a legal proceeding, there is a likelihood of delay at various stages from the service of notice upon the parties, the framing of issues, submission of pleadings, examination of witnesses, production of documents and the counsels’ arguments. If a party apprehends an adverse result, there is a tendency on part of litigants or practitioners to place obstacles in these proceedings. The logical response to this endemic problem is that judges need to be more proactive in managing the flow of proceedings before them. Attempts to delay the proceedings should be treated firmly but it must also be kept in mind that the desire to improve procedural efficiency should not compromise the quality of justice being delivered. As inheritors of the common-law tradition, we are bound to follow the principles of natural justice, namely that ‘no man shall be a judge in his own cause’, that ‘no persons shall be condemned unheard’ and that ‘every order will be a reasoned order’.

Even though the judges are the main actors in the justice-delivery system, their efficiency is closely related to the behaviour of advocates, litigants, investigating agencies and witnesses among others. While public scrutiny is rightly being directed towards the performance and accountability of judges, there is also a need to examine the responsibilities of all the other participants in the judicial system. In particular, there is an urgent need to tackle the institution of frivolous claims and the giving of false evidence. Judges can perform their fact-finding and adjudicatory roles in a satisfactory manner only if they receive the co-operation of all the stakeholders. In this sense, the judicial function is as much a collective enterprise as the other wings of government.

A meaningful shift will only occur if attitudes change among the bar. Ultimately it is the responsibility of legal practitioners to advice their clients on the suitability of resorting to litigation. For resolving many categories of disputes, adversarial courtroom litigation is not appropriate since disputes can be amicably resolved at the pre-trial stage. With the objective of promoting awareness about these methods, full-time Mediation Centres have been established in the various High Courts as well as some of the District Courts. Their function is to not only provide mediation services but also to impart training about the same.

I must also emphasize that a large portion of the increase in litigation rates can be attributed to stronger remedies that have been introduced through Central and State legislations over the years. In particular, our trial courts are confronted with a disproportionate number of cases involving the dishonour of cheques, motor accident compensation claims, domestic violence and corruption-related cases. This is of course a natural consequence of the fact that litigant-friendly procedures and remedies were incorporated to address such grievances. Hence, there has been an incentive for parties to come forward and file cases in these categories. However, there has not been a commensurate increase in the strength of judges needed to decide these cases.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

In recognition of this fact, the strength of the Supreme Court and the various High Courts has been gradually increased. However, it is the strength of the subordinate courts which calls for a drastic increase. I have repeatedly called for targeted interventions by way of increasing the strength of the subordinate judiciary, while emphasizing the need for establishing more Family Courts, CBI Courts and specialised magistrates’ courts. In recent months, a lot of attention has been drawn to the proposal for establishing ‘Gram Nyayalayas’. Under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 judicial officers of the rank of Civil Judge (Junior Division) will be appointed to function at the block-level. The intent of course is to bring the justice-delivery system closer to rural citizens who have to otherwise travel to distant district centres. It is estimated that nearly 5,000 judicial officers will be needed to occupy these positions.

Since 2007, some important steps have been taken to improve the quality of justice-delivery. Hundreds of judicial conferences have been organized through the National and State Judicial Academies as well as National and State Legal Services Authorities on the topic of delay and arrears reduction as well as enhancing timely justice to raise awareness about the problem and develop effective strategies. There has been substantially increased attention to the use of Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) techniques, in particular mediation and Lok Adalats. A system of planning and management is being developed and recommended to High Courts for their consideration. A National Judicial Infrastructure Plan, A National Judicial Education Strategy and a National Mediation Plan have been developed and are in different stages of implementation. The results of these massive initiatives have been encouraging. Reversing earlier trends, filing of new cases as well as disposal has gone up at the national level. However, aggregate pendency has increased because the increase in filing has been faster than the rate of disposals in general.

I must also comment on the importance of Legal Aid programmes, especially those which seek to impart legal literacy in remote and backward areas. We must acknowledge that access to legal education is still confined to a privileged few and that the existing pool of judges and lawyers is not adequate to bring about the changes that we desire. In recognition of this fact, a Committee headed by a sitting Supreme Court judge has been recently appointed to oversee the training of motivated young individuals as paralegals, who can then expand the reach of the legal aid programmes. We are also in the process of designing a project dedicated to the improvement of access to justice in the North-Eastern region of our country. It is our hope that improved awareness and access to legal remedies will help in mitigating the socio-political conflicts in troubled areas.

Efforts are also being made to incorporate Information Technology (IT) based solutions in order to strengthen the judicial system. Under the E-Courts project, most judicial officers in the country have been provided with computers, printers and access to legal databases. Steps are also being taken to digitize precedents as well as the permanent records of courts at all levels. At present the daily cause-lists, orders and judgments of the Supreme Court and the respective High Courts are freely available online through the Judgment Information System (JUDIS). In the coming years, the objective is to ensure that materials pertaining to all subordinate courts as well as tribunals will also be made freely available through this system.

Another important element of judicial reforms is that of organising educational programmes, which are held at the National Judicial Academy (Bhopal) and the various State Judicial Academies. These programmes are periodically held for the benefit of sitting judges from all levels. They are designed to raise awareness about the latest legal developments as well as the strengthening of skills for court-management, research and writing. Special efforts are made to sensitise judges to the complex interactions between law and social realities. These programmes also serve as a common forum for judges serving in different parts of the country to interact and learn from each others’ experiences.

Recently, the Union Minister for Law and Justice has also unveiled some proposals for systemic reforms. There are plans to establish a ‘National Arrears Grid’ which will compile reliable statistics on the institution, disposal and pendency of cases at all levels. The top law officers of the Central Government have also resolved to reduce the extent of litigation which involves governmental agencies. A ‘National Litigation Policy’ is being designed wherein administrative remedies will be strengthened in order to reduce the burden before the courts. A comprehensive legislation dealing with the subject of standards and accountability in the higher judiciary is also on the anvil.

To conclude, I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to all my colleagues who are serving at the various levels of the judicial system. I hope that they will all strive to uphold the high standards of dignity and integrity that are expected from anyone who holds a judicial office. I must also place on record my gratitude to the administrative staff members who have been working hard to keep pace with the increasing case-load. Like any public institution, the quality of justice-delivery also depends on the trust and confidence of the larger public. We rely on an active bar, a free press and a vigilant citizenry to point out our unintended mistakes so that we can improve our functioning. I sincerely hope that the dialogue between the judiciary and the various stakeholders in our society continues to take place in a cordial and constructive manner.

Jai Hind!

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article54845.ece?homepage=true

Looks like activists across the political spectrum are uniting against a problem I previously termed “Lazy Law.” As Harvey Silverglate illustrates in his book Three Felonies a Day federal criminal law is so comprehensive and vague that almost anyone can be construed as having broken some law. Which means that prosecutors can indict practically anyone they wish.

NYTimes offers an interesting survey of the movement.

Edwin Meese III, who was known as a fervent supporter of law and order as attorney general in the Reagan administration, now spends much of his time criticizing what he calls the astounding number and vagueness of federal criminal laws.

“It’s a violation of federal law to give a false weather report,” Mr. Meese said. “People get put in jail for importing lobsters.”

The recent bollywood flick “Jail” by Madhur Bhandarkar deserves an applaud. It not only exposes the real truth behind the so glorified dowry cases (all of which are false) and how Section 498A is being misused by women to extort men, but also exposes  the truth of Indian Judiciary. Treat your eyes,

Source : http://freeaafia.org/

Let’s not ignore, gloss over, not think about, or otherwise minimize the destructive and illegal acts by the deliberate traitors. All who love God, freedom, the Constitution, their children and those who come after, MUST do EVERYTHING it takes to stop them! We cannot wait for an election (which may be filled with fraud and weak-willed candidates) as time is not on our side! If they will not listen to We the People and they will not submit to the Constitution, then We the People have no other choice than to exercise our 2nd Amendment Right and duty to restore righteous governance as the Founders intended. Please read the linked article by James Simpson

Cloward-Piven Government.

No one is perfect. Everyone has got good and bad points, it is the degree of this positive or negative aspects which should be assessed. Sometimes we are so besotted with a person that we do not see his black side and by the same token, we may be so obsessed with someone’s actions and pronouncements that we fail to see the enormous contributions he makes. We fail to see the wood for the trees.

I like to think that I am politically neutral. I try hard to understand cultural differences through reading and interactions with other races. The internet has enriched my knowledge and put a lot of things into perspectives. I embrace it gleefully and that is how I really find out how some people can be so expressive about things. All the while I thought (naively) that Mahathir was generally loved by everybody seeing that he has made Malaysia progressively modern. His treatment of the judiciary was of course a negative point and also his perceived promotion of cronyism in business through negotiated tenders which resulted in numerous mega projects and made many a multi-millionaire.

Well, negotiated tenders shortened the time taken to complete projects for the benefit of the people. So we have Putrjaya, KLIA, LRT and Sepang Formula One circuit and that awesome Petronas Twin Towers which fill me with so much pride whenever I look at them! At the same time I am painfully aware that this form of project tendering has also caused a lot of problems like shoddy work and unnecessary over provision of infrastructures and there are projects like schools and health clinics which are way too big for the local population and built without proper coordination, for example no proper access road to the building, no water supply and sometimes no electricity so the project was completed fast but the operation was much, much delayed.

During Mahathir’s time before 1998, there were many “wealthy” poster boys in Renong, Malaysia Airlines,among others. Our national airlines was privatised, yes, Mahathir followed his contemporary, Margaret Thatcher’s policy in England who privatised a lot of government’s agencies. So many become wealthy almost overnight. But there were also the likes of Ananda Krishna and Vincent Tan who benefited a great deal from their connection with Mahathir.

In short Mahathir’s contributions, partly through his long tenure (22 years) as the Prime Minister are visible in all segments of the Malaysian society, be it the government civil service ( remember the punch-clock, the name tag and the quality drive?), the democratisation of the education sector, the Technology (remember the multimedia supercorridor MSC?), the development infrastructures ( I ride the Express Rail to and fro KLIA with brimming pride and I remember Tun Mahathir) and the Malaysian psyche (remember “Malaysia Boleh”?), of course this “boleh” culture could sometimes be exaggerated to ludicrous extent! And some people have expressed cynicism towards this and extend it to things negative.

Anyway, despite the perceived suppression of the press and freedom of speech and the judiciary, I must say we had that feel good factor in Malaysia then. The stock market was booming and where everywhere else was experiencing low growth, our country was posting good economic data, that was then till that fateful Asian Financial Crisis in 1997-1998 and yet due to Mahathir’s unorthodox capital control measures we were able to come out of it without having to depend on IMF (International Monetary Fund) with its “punishing financial measures designed to keep us indebted to it!” apart from stoking potential social chaos in the country. Mahathir saved us! His financial measures (previously attacked) are being adopted by countries facing the recent financial meltdown and economic crisis.

Tun Mahathir was a leader with passion in everything he did and he delivered! Hats off to him. A truly great and visionary leader who happened to speak his mind especially against the West (sometimes I must admit, made me cringed!). I am glad I was able to meet him personally and shook his hands on four occasions, two of which after he has stepped down as PM. I had also met his wife, the gentle Tun Siti Hasmah and I will remember her work through BAKTI ( the Association of Ministers’ Wives) for the unfortunate children.

I am rather bewildered by blogs’ postings which are against Mahathir. Some are quite venomous. One even stated he would like to invent a virus so that it will infect people to erase all their memories of Mahathir! And not surprisingly, the blogger is a lawyer! I can understand blogs which belong to the opposition such as Limkitsiang or Tuk Guru Nik Aziz who would not really praise Mahathir.

Then this so called forum this week in Malaysiakini whose participants spoke very badly about Tun. As I was reading through, it dawned upon me that these people would not be able to express themselves silly and freely if not because of Mahathir whose policy on information technology has brought us kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Tun has set a foundation and we are benefiting from its expansion, extension and innovation. These people have every right to express their opinion but surely they must be fair. Even Lim Kit Siang, one of our politicians I most admire, praised Tun on the History channel recent documentary on Mahathir for his vision on MSC. I remember Uncle Kit was incarcerated during Operation Lallang under Tun.

Recently I came across the blog by a Malaysian residing in Adelaide, My! His articles against Mahathir are vexatious and so very personal that I wonder what has the Tun done to deserve such a maligned treatment! He even went to the extent of saying Mahathir was corrupt and he praised Abdullah Badawi for being Mr Clean. This made me smirk as I have seen the abuse during the latter’s tenure which saw the company of his son in law being given a contract to supply buses to RapidKL, ambulances and buses to government health agencies which did not follow specifications. Ambulances which cannot go beyond 60Km/hr, buses with the wrong engine capacity as a result they were so slow as to cause transport problems and many of them now , like those in RapidKL are left idle, unmaintained, causing huge loss to tax-payers. And what about Mr Clean writing a letter of recommendation for his sister in law to get a business deal in the UN Iraq oil for food programme?

I was present at a big convention in 2005 where there were about 1000 people and mind you, this was not a political gathering. Three main speakers spoke on different days, the Prime Minister, the Deputy and the ex-Prime Minister. Most people dozed off half-way of the speeches of the first two and only those in the front row shook their hands as each was leaving after the session. Yet the participants were captivated by Mahathir when he was speaking on the third day and when he was about to leave, you have to see it to believe it, the participants rushed forward, including yours truly and we were almost in a stampede trying to shake his hand. I have a photo to show me extending my hand eagerly and him looking with an amused smile. Such was the love we had for him!

So Tun Mahathir, I know that you are not getting any younger and while you are still with us, I would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for making Malaysia what it is today, proud and capable. Though not all your missions were accomplished, you can rest assured that the nation feels ever so grateful to you. You built visible towers that endure while your immediate successor promised to produce “towering individuals” that came to naught (really just hot air!). Yes, your detractors lauded Abdullah Badawi for allowing more freedom than you but at what cost? You understand the country and its people better. The way people go on about total freedom of expression in this country is like asking China to practice democracy in its truest form. Can we imagine the socio-political implications and repercussions? Look at Yugoslavia and Iraq, democracy with cruel bloodbath.

We are lucky in Malaysia where our form of democracy and respect for different cultures, political arrangements and social contract have enabled us to grow to this level and thank also to our abundant natural resources. So, can’t we all be grateful and co-exist peacefully? People may say I take a simplistic view but as long as I am happy with it, who would really care, I wonder.

This is really amazing no fair trial, no justice, baseless allegations on an innocent mother of 3 children two of which are still missing (if alive) and still they call their selves civilized fighting a so-called war against terror. The imperialists are real terrorists and hypocrites ruling the world with their power,brutal killings,economic exploitation and lies.

They Zionists/Neo-Cons don’t consider others as human beings , they are real fascists and modern face of Nazism.

Can Aafia get the share of civilization and system of justice she deserves? Is there any conscience left in our government which is busy in licking feet of their imperialist masters? Is there any Kerry-Lugar bill for Aafia? Is there any humanity left for an innocent lady who has suffered a lot for being a muslim women who loves her religion?

————————————————————————————————————————

Source: http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/21-Nov-2009/Dr-Aafia-to-boycott-trial

Dr Aafia to boycott trial

The Nation
NEW YORK – While a defiant Aafia Siddiqui declared that she would boycott her trial in January, a federal judge Thursday rejected her lawyers’ plea that she could not be tried in the United States as they pointed out that the Pakistani neuroscientist’s alleged crime took place outside the country. Ms Siddiqui, who was brought to New York in August 2008 from Afghanistan where prosecutors say she allegedly fired at US interrogators. No American was hit but she was shot in the abdomen and was charged with attempted murder and assault.
In a pre-trial hearing on Thursday, her lawyers, led by Charles Swift, argued that Dr Siddiqui could only be tried on terrorism charges in the US, and not on murder charges. In this regard, he quoted various international regulations.
But US District Judge Richard Berman ruled out the motion, saying that the US courts have jurisdiction if American citizens were subjected to attacks abroad, citing some precedents.
But Ms Siddiqui, who is languishing in a maximum security jail, interrupted her lawyers in US District Court in Manhattan to announce that she did not plan to participate in her trial, scheduled for Jan 19.
“I am boycotting this trial,” she declared. “I am innocent of all the charges and I can prove it, but I will not do it in this court.”
Since the very beginning, Ms Siddiqui has said that she has no confidence in the American judicial system or the lawyers appointed for her by the court – even those retained by the government of Pakistan – and that she wants to make peace and knows how to do it.
She has vigorously protested against what she called humiliating strip searches before she is brought to the court.
Judge Berman said that her trial would proceed after her lawyers and prosecutors visit Afghanistan to interview eyewitnesses to finalise their case.
Lawyers for Ms Siddiqui tried to convince the court that she was mentally incompetent to stand trial, citing in part her refusal to cooperate with lawyers and the reports of a psychologist who said she suffers from delusional disorder and depression.
Judge Berman rejected that argument after prosecutors pointed to psychological reports that concluded she was faking mental illness.
Berman on Thursday rejected defence arguments aimed at tossing out charges against Ms Siddiqui that carry a potential minimum prison sentence of 30 years and a maximum penalty of life in prison.
Before he ruled on the request, Dr Siddiqui said visits by her lawyers were “torture for me” and it was a waste of money for lawyers to go to Afghanistan to interview witnesses because she was not participating in the trial.
“I’m not dealing with them anymore,” Dr Siddiqui said of her lawyers. “They’re just people coming to my door and talking, talking, talking.”
During a break, Dr Siddiqui was led out of the courtroom by US marshals when she would not stop talking loudly. “Take me out,” she said. “I’m not coming back.”
She was not present when the judge made his decision.

Finally the ever awaited list of National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO)  is out which has names of 8,041 beneficiaries out of which only 34 are politicians and rest are from bureaucracy , criminals, businessmen and other accused.

There is a huge demand from various corners of the society to take resignations voluntarily or in voluntarily from the people who benefited from this law and are still serving in the government.

The point of view of government as presented by federal minister for information and governor of Gilgit-Bultistan Qamar Zaman Kaira is that demanding resignations from NRO beneficiaries uncalled for.  The reason he gives is one will have to differentiate between charges and crimes and that nothing has so far been proved against the NRO beneficiaries which on principle seems to be OK! But can the information minister inform us about the pending cases and trials of common people in courts who have to justify their innocence before law to get acquitted and if the NRO angels where innocent then why they took refuge in a dictator’s shelter of NRO.

The question here is of morality and social justice that why an elite group of people found it necessary to get a clearance certificate through a draconian law instead of facing the courts whereas a common man has to face years of trial to get justice.

Still no full list of beneficiaries and cases is provided to the people and media.

We also demand the list of people who got benefits from loan forgiveness or unfair settlements through corrupt political and banking practices.

(Images source: http://pkpolitics.com/2009/11/22/nro-list-shows-34-politicians-out-of-8000/)

Edinburgh’s Royal Mile will again host this year’s Silent Walk for Justice. The Silent Walk for Justice, which first took place last year along Edinburgh’s Royal Mile, is to be held again this year on December 4, beginning at 3.00 p.m. where those wishing to participate should meet at the updated gathering venue, which is now the “pedestrianised area between the bollards in the High Street “(just east of St Giles Cathedral), with a walk down the Royal Mile, culminating at the Scottish Parliament.

One of the focal points of this year’s Silent Walk for Justice, will be to press for changes on the widespread denial of information to relatives of deceased persons by the authorities, where even access to documentation and evidence under Freedom of Information legislation has routinely been obstructed by the likes of Scotland’s Crown Office, ever unwilling it seems to release information which may compromise its notoriously flawed decision making process on issues such as Fatal Accident Inquiries.

Lord Cullen completed his review on FAI legislation. On the subject of Fatal Accident Inquiries, Lord Cullen as readers will already have noted in the general media, has completed his review of the FAI legislation, and come up with recommendations for change, to something the Crown Office always considered perfect prior to Lord Cullen’s comments. You can read the Scottish Government’s Press Release on Lord Cullen’s review, here Review of Fatal Accident Inquiry Legislation and download a copy of the review’s final report, here : Review of Fatal Accident Inquiry Legislation: The Report..

Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini – should FAI power be ‘discretionary’ or enshrined in legislation ? One of the recommendations of Lord Cullen’s review on current FAI procedures is that if the circumstances justified it, such an inquiry should take place at the Lord Advocate’s discretion. However, many families who have experienced the widespread inadequacies of the current FAI system would probably say there must be clear legislation and procedures on this to follow, because as we have always seen in Scots Law, ‘discretion’ seems to leave the scene of death very quickly if it transpires the authorities have made ‘blunders’ during the investigation stage that some in the legal establishment feel would be better kept under wraps, rather than coming out in a Fatal Accident Inquiry.

The Herald newspaper ran a report on the Cullen FAI Review, which you can read here : Review calls for hearings when Scots die abroad and one of the cases mentioned in the Herald report, the death of Colin Love, has a website and ongoing petition at the Scottish Parliament calling for amendments to FAI legislation.

THE SILENT WALK FOR JUSTICE
4 Dec 2009
Edinburgh, Friday 3.00pm – 6.00pm

Innocent people are imprisoned whilst criminals walk free. Families fight in vain to have crimes committed against their loved ones investigated. Dead children have organs removed illegally. Women and children face increased violence and sexual abuse. Councils rob the public of the use of common-good lands. Victims of crime are not being compensated whilst others fail to receive the care they require and deserve. Lawyers cheat their clients whilst public authorities withhold information and cover up for others…

The Silent Walk For Justice is held annually to honour those various people searching for justice, exposing the need for improvements within the Scottish justice system. The Freedom of Information Act was conceived as a means to give the public access to information, however, this is being often denied with the response that “it is not in the public interest”.

We the mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, children and friends concerned by such unfairness within the Scottish justice system, have the right to obtain documentation concerning our cases and our loved ones. We are families and friends together and with everyone else engaged in the pursuit of justice, WE ARE ALSO the PUBLIC and the documentation is in OURS and – THE PUBLIC INTEREST. We therefore request that the Freedom of Information Act is amended to fulfil our needs.

Silent Walk for Justice 2009 Programme. To honour our loved ones and in order to achieve better consideration under the Act, we will all meet at 3.00 p.m at the assembly area at the “pedestrianised area between the bollards in the High Street” ( just east of St Giles Cathedral). We will then walk together in peace and in silence along the Royal Mile and stop in front of the Scottish Parliament. At the Parliament we will put down our pictures of our loved ones and our placards publicising the cause that we are individually fighting for and light our candles. After a speech from one of the organisers of The Silent Walk For Justice, a representative from the Scottish Justice Department is invited to greet the people and reply to our demands for the reformation of the Freedom of Information Act. We will also give thanks to the Lord Advocate, Mrs Elish Angiolini, for introducing a new unit to investigate unsolved crimes.

Together we can make a change. Please join The Silent Walk For Justice!

Contact the organisers of the Silent Walk for Justice 2009 here : truthandjustice4all@live.se

Indian criminal justice systems swing to the extremes. Either third grade tortures or too much sweet hospitality. In the latest swinger, Tamil Nadu jails report excess weight gain of its inmates. There is popular saying in Tamil – Mamiyar veedu. Jail means in-laws place where you get regular food. What was intended to reform the prisoners seem to be turning out to be a sensation creator. This does not augur well for the criminal justice system. Some of the prisoners are able to enjoy the clout with their money power. Look at Shahbuddin the serial killer from Bihar, Manu Sharma the rich brat, Annachi of the Saravana Bhavan. All of these super rich jail birds are making mockery of their jail terms. This must end at the earliest. The Times of India writes on 23 November 2009 Steaming hot upma or pongal, sambhar rice with vegetables, boiled peanuts, dal with ghee and roasted chicken. This is not the menu card of a south Indian restaurant, but food served to inmates of various prisons in Tamil Nadu. No wonder, a jail stint in the state leaves prisoners with an expanded waistline or even a pot-belly, contrary to the general perception that jailbirds look haggard or emaciated. Nearly 90% of prisoners in the state who were freed during 2007-08 have gone home with increased weight, according to the latest data released by the Department of Statistics and Economics. Interestingly, not even a single prisoner lost weight during his/her stay in jail, going by the details given. Of the 4,796 prisoners released, 4,231 people, including 241 women, had gained weight varying from 1 kg to 3 kg, while there was no change in the weight of the rest. Of the prisoners released during 2006-07, 115 had gained over 5 kg, the statistics revealed. “What the prisoners in TN get is a balanced diet of the sort they may not get outside,’’ said V Kannadasan, special public prosecutor for the Human Rights Court. “They are served bed-time tea at 6 am, followed by upma or pongal or gruel for breakfast. At noon, they are served 650 gm of rice with sambhar, butter milk and vegetables, which is followed by boiled peanuts in the evening. Dinner consists of 550 gm of rice with sambhar. For those advised a wheat diet by doctors, chappatis and dal are served,’’ he added. Sundays are special as the prisoners are served 150 gm of chicken. While those in ‘A’ class cells get to relish the non-vegetarian dish thrice a week, vegetarians are served dal with ghee. Should the bulging waistline of prisoners be attributed to nutritious food or lack of physical activity? “We ensure that their diet has a proper mix of nutrition to meet calorific requirements. To improve the quality of commodities, we’ve dispensed with the contract system and started procuring food items from the public distribution system,’’ said R Natraj, DGP (fire and rescue services). However, some activists disagree with the official theory, saying that the “obesity’’ of prisoners was due to a lack of physical activity. “The weight gain among prisoners does not indicate that they are being given nutritious food. People above 40 years are generally prone to gaining weight and hence it cannot be taken as an indicator of their well-being,’’ said lawyer-activist Sudha Ramalingam. P Pugazhenthi, director, Prisoners Rights Forum, said unlike earlier times, prisoners were not being given physical work, which not only kept them fit but also fetched them remuneration.

November 23, 2009

Will Anwar be ambushed by trial?

From The Nut Graph

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has failed in his bid, at the Court of Appeal, to obtain evidence from the public prosecutor about his alleged act of sodomy with a young former aide. Layperson reactions have naturally been cynical, dismissing the judgment as political in nature.

Indeed, the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of Section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), by which it made its judgment, is worrisome from a justice perspective. The judgment nullifies the efforts of the parliamentary select committee which proposed the CPC amendments in 2006 requiring pre-trial disclosure by the prosecution to the defence. The legislature’s intention was to “prevent trial by ambush” but the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Anwar’s sodomy case seems to overturn that principle.

But is Section 51A as clear cut as it is meant to be? And is splitting hairs over its meaning scuppering Anwar’s chances for a fair trial?

Meaning of words

Section 51A was introduced to widen the scope of evidence that the defence could obtain from the prosecution. At first reading, it comes across as a clear obligation for the prosecution to make available to the defence evidence that it intends to use during trial.

Section 51A . Delivery of certain documents

1. The prosecution shall before the commencement of the trial deliver to the accused the following documents:

a) A copy of the information made under section 107 relating to the commission of the offence to which the accused is charged, if any;

b) A copy of any document which would be tendered as part of the evidence for the prosecution; and

c) A written statement of facts favourable to the defence of the accused signed under the hand of the Public Prosecutor or any person conducting the prosecution.

The meaning of the words “shall” and “any document” is clear, says member of the Bar Council’s criminal law committee, Datuk Baljit Singh Sidhu, who is also the author of Criminal Litigation Process.

“The intention of 51A is to put both parties in a trial on equal footing in the interest of justice. That was parliament’s intent. The word ’shall’ should be taken to mean ‘must’.

“If the court does not interpret ’shall’ as being mandatory, then there is no point to the amendment,” Baljit, who is also Gerakan Federal Territory legal adviser, tells The Nut Graph.

“Any document” should also be taken to mean any type of evidence, Baljit adds. It is all the more important when it involves evidence like DNA, for which scientific expertise and time are required if defence lawyers are to analyse it.

However, the Court of Appeal in Anwar’s sodomy case decided there were “limits” as to the kind of evidence the prosecution could be asked to produce before a trial. Hence, it overturned the High Court’s decision ordering the prosecution to hand over evidence, which included video footage, medical reports, doctors’ notes, and witness statements of alleged victim Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, and others. The bench, in rejecting Anwar’s cross-appeal for DNA specimens held by the prosecution, also said that the evidence requested did not fall under the category of evidence in 51A.

“The amendment [to the CPC] is as good as non-existent,” SN Nair, one of Anwar’s lawyers, tells The Nut Graph.

Merely procedure?

The Court of Appeal’s written judgment is not out yet, so Anwar’s lawyers are still unclear about the basis of the ruling although they have filed two notices of appeal at the Federal Court Registry.

But it does appear that the court reverted to the law prior to the introduction of 51A on the basis of the prosecution’s arguments. “The prosecution went back to pre-amendment law arguing that they had the discretion as to what evidence to give and to decide which facts were favourable to the accused,” Nair says in a phone interview.

Clause (c) of 51A(1) requires the prosecution to provide a written statement of facts that are favourable to the defence. According to Nair, evidence that is favourable to the accused can only be found in witnesses’ statements.

“In witnesses’ statements, there could be evidence that potentially saves the accused. Sharing of these facts means the defence gets to decide what is favourable in the interest of fair trial,” Nair says.

The High Court granted access to these statements to Anwar’s defence team but it was revoked by the appellate court.

Some prosecutors also argue that 51A is a “procedural” amendment and not a matter of law, says criminal lawyer Richard Wee.

“While by and large the courts mostly do tell off the prosecution, there are some who buy that argument. They take the view that if a prosecutor fails to adhere to 51A, it’s merely a procedural error,” Wee says in a phone interview.

Such an interpretation means the prosecution’s case can avoid an inconclusive end. If the court were to view 51A as a law rather than procedure, cases could end up much like how blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin was discharged but not acquitted for sedition, simply because police could not find him.

“Similarly,” says Wee, “if evidence is not provided by the prosecution under 51A, the defence should be accorded the right to seek for a discharge not amounting to acquittal.”

Wiggle room

The repercussions of procedural rather than legalistic interpretation of the law are alarming. Besides placing prosecution and defence on unequal footing, does it also mean law enforcement need not keep to high standards to ensure thorough and fair investigative work?

Shoddy police work is unfortunately a reality, but that’s where the law could have been drafted more precisely to plug the gaps. Wee feels that 51A was not drafted specifically enough to take into account the “practical realities of what happens in court”.

Some realities include: The prosecution denies before trial to having found any facts favourable to the accused. Or they may produce other evidence in mid-trial instead of evidence disclosed pre-trial. They may argue that new evidence is required in response to the defence’s arguments.

Wee feels the wording about making available documents “which would be tendered as part of evidence” limits the kind of evidence that can be requested for and gives room to the prosecution to wiggle out of it.

“It would have been better to say ‘any documents related’ to the trial, which would be specific but in a wider sense, covers all other evidence that could be raised during trial,” he says.

The obvious conclusion?

Yet, the fact is, there are judges who uphold 51A and ensure it is adhered to, notes Baljit.

“Having case management before trial for evidence to be given to the defence is normal practice and courts will set a date for mention to ensure that all this is complied with,” he says.

So if other courts are upholding the law, what else are people to make of how Anwar’s appeal was handled other than to think that the judiciary is not free from political interference?

Linda Kogel and Judge Anderson both know of federal and state crimes committed by Amy Lyngstad. Linda Kogel has no account checks with fake social security numbers. She lies to the Court on past hearings and Anderson is the 6th Judge in the matter and does not care about the law. She knows Lyngstad violated her probation.

The Court sealed the child abuse report. The Court knows about identity theft. Who had the school change the report card? The Court knows about probation violations. The Court and Linda Kogel ignore the law.

SD Canons Rule 4.1. Truthfulness in Statements to Others.
In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:
(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or
(b) fail to disclose a material fact when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.

COMMENT:Misrepresentation

[1] A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client’s behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements. For dishonest conduct that does not amount to a false statement or for misrepresentations by a lawyer other than in the course of representing a client, see Rule 8.4.
Rule 8.4. Misconduct. It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the rules of professional conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; or
(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.
CANON 2
A Judge Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All of the Judge’s Activities
A. A judge shall respect and comply with the law* and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
CANON 3
A Judge Shall Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently
B. Adjudicative Responsibilities.
(2) A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it.

Rumi Ahmed
20 November, 2009, USA

Take from the altar of the ancients, not the ashes, but the fire.

– Gustav Mahler

The verdict of the Appellate Division regarding the murder of President Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and members of his family is an important milestone in our political and judicial history. The men accused of the murder went through our entire judicial system, from the District Court to the Appellate Division. Some of the individuals initially accused were acquitted. Those who were convicted had the chance to present all suitable defences, and were accorded all the rights which our state gives defendants in criminal prosecutions.

For all those individuals who were affected by the gruesome murders, one hopes that this comes as some salve to the personal wound that will undoubtedly haunt them the rest of their lives. The psychological trauma that comes from the assassination of loved ones, and the dislocation that comes from seeing our elders and guardians lying bloodied and lifeless, is unparalleled. We hope the pain that they carry around every day is a little lighter today.

As a result of the verdict today, at least five individuals will soon die. I hope their families will make peace with that, and be able to continue with normal and productive lives.

However, where justice ends, reflection begins.

Let’s think of sets, and Venn diagrams.

Think about the set of people who had responsibility for the 15th August massacre. Narrow that set to all individuals alive today. Are there only twelve people in that set?

Let’s narrow it still further. Let’s think about all the people against whom there exists tangible evidence regarding dereliction of duty or involvement in conspiracy. Are there only twelve people in that set?

Let’s narrow the set still further. Only include the people who were at Dhanmondi Road 32 that fateful night and morning, with weapons in their hand and murder in their heart. Have we gotten all of them?

Here’s the funny thing, just as there were people there that night and early morning who were not supposed to be there, there are a lot of people that morning who should have been there, but were not.

One think about police guards and the army units guarding the President. But where was the Rakkhi Bahini, the President’s hand-created paramilitary unit? Where were the leaders of Awami League? At least some of them had fought in the war four years past, they could have potentially held off the attackers until help arrived.

“Shafiullah, your units are attacking me.”

“Sir, I am seeing what to do. Can you leave your residence?”

A response worthy of all the commanders of the Army of Bengal who stood idle at Plassey.

“Tofael, send the Rakkhi Bahini.”

“We are under attack by Army tanks, sir.”

Only, it later turned out, the tank was disarmed, it did not have any shells in it.

In a sense, it is of lesser importance to pinpoint those who pumped all those bullets in Sheilh Mujib, Begum Mujib, and their family members. Army units started surrounding their home and taking positions to shell Dhanmondi from the evening of 14th August, at least twelve hours before the massacre. How could the entire machinery of the state remain inert for twelve hours? Consultation and conspiracy regarding this started at least months ago. Apparently Indian intelligence warned Sheikh Mujib of the attack. So did at least one civilian intelligence agency. Then Deputy Army Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Ziaur Rahman visited the President and warned him regarding grumblings of unrest in the Army.

Who then, were the individuals who negated all these warnings? The individuals who said, “Mujib Bhai, nothing will happen?”

Of course, whom would President Sheikh Mujib trust, a superseded officer such as Ziaur Rahman, who was never a part of the AL inner circle? Or Khandkar Mushtaque Ahmed, the “Ukil baba” in the marriages of both Sheikh Jamal and Sheikh Kamal?

Zia? Or Dalim, a close personal friend of the Sheikh family who could take personal grievances directly to the President?

Bangladesh started rejecting the perpetrators of the massacre soon after, as evidenced by the flight of the guilty to various countries within two months of the massacre. Make no mistake about it, history would have been different today if they had all stayed in Bangladesh. It is no accident that the most prominent of those convicted to death is Lt. Col. Syed Faruq Rehman, a former Presidential candidate in 1988 and former chief of Freedom Party. It is not a coincidence that he never fled Bangladesh, but instead chose to stay and attempt to shape Bangladesh’s political climate in his favor.

Part of the reason Sheikh Shaheb never paid heed to any warnings about uprising because he blinded himself to the most egregious fault in our collective nature. We love to over-exult when the times are good. However, when the chips are down, and it is time for action: we are hesitant, doubtful, and faltering. Today, Dhaka is full of people claiming that they have borne a burden in their heart for 34 years. In addition to being a grievous insult to those who have actually borne a burden for 34 years, it is also a lie. It is easy for people to stand in Bangladesh in 2009, with a ten-month AL government with a nine-tenth majority in the Parliament and Sheikh Mujib’s daughter as Prime Minister and his close associate as President, and claim that this is the single greatest moment in their lives. It was, likewise, extremely easy to tell the President of Bangladesh, and the dictator of our state (not in the sense we understand it, but in the actual sense of the word), that there was no way that a couple of army punks would dare to against Sheikh Mujib. And boy, if they did, they would soon see “koto dhane koto chaal.”

Except, when it really matters, action trumps words. And there was only one side in 15th August 1975 that took action. Something our current Prime Minister, and all future prime ministers, would do well to remember and internalize.

It is our nation’s sincerest hope that such a circumstance as 15th August 1975 never occurs again. That force never substitutes political discourse again. Let us go forward to better times.

* * * * *

Rumi Ahmed is a Bangladeshi blogger from United States.

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

The Right to Information movement in India is in severe jeopardy because of award mania created by a private combine styled as ‘Public Cause Research Foundation’, hereinafter called the foundation, comprising three persons, Arvind Kejirwal, Manish Sisodia and Abhinandan Sekhri. This combine has, in name of the nation, instituted awards in three segments in RTI implementation mechanism, such as (1) Information Commissioners, (2) Public Information officers and (3) citizens active in use of RTI Act.

When the Information Commissioner selected as “most outstanding” for having enabled access to correct and complete information to maximum appellants and enforced RTI Act in its true letter and spirit would be awarded with Rs.2 lakhs cash and citation as the best IC of the year, two Public Information Officers marked for providing complete and correct information in maximum number of RTI applications within the prescribed time limit and/or for having made special efforts in providing information to the applicants, would each receive a citation, a plaque and prize money of Rs. 2 Lakhs where as prizes of the same pattern would be awarded to two of the citizens who should have created maximum public impact by using RTI Act, the Foundation has declared.

The awards are “an effort to celebrate honesty and openness in public service”, claims the Foundation. This is saying in other words that the RTI implementation machinery is infested with dishonesty and clandestinity. From this perception the Foundation proceeds to find out if there is any exception.

It has floated a body with misleading title like the National RTI Awards Secretariat.

And, the so-called secretariat has hand picked preferred persons to act as “National RTI Awards Jury” as if it enjoys national approval with the power to select the “winner(s)”!

And, what they have done?

They have made a report of selection, which, according to Central Information Commissioner Prof. Dr. M.M. Ansari, “is so flawed that it is not worth even the paper on which it was written”.

Putting his reactions to the revealed ranking under the caption “Flawed Logic and Specious Conclusions”, Prof. Ansari has noted that the parameters adopted for valuation of Commissioners “can best be described as voodoo statistics and methods which will not stand scientific scrutiny even for a moment”.

Suggesting that the Foundation’s exercise is obviously an act of award-fixing, Prof. Ansari has cited some instances. Such as, he says,

“Mr.V.V. Bhorge (Information Commissioner, Maharastra) has disposed of 4593 second-appeals, out of which in 989 cases, he had issued affirmative orders in favour of the appellants. He had imposed 126 penalties on errant public officials. Mr.Bhorge has been ranked as one of the five worst Commissioners.

Now contrast this with the indulgence with which the authors have treated Mr.D.N. Padhi of Orissa. Mr.Padhi has decided 423 cases, out of which in 361 cases, he has decided the appeal in favour of the appellant. He has imposed 40 penalties. Mr.Padhi has been ranked as one of the best five Commissioners.

Now contrast Mr.Padhi’s performance with the performance of Mr.Bhorge and you will find how lopsided and erratic have been the self-appointed evaluators of the performance of the Commissioners. Mr.Bhorge has decided a much larger number of cases than Mr.Padhi. He has imposed a far larger number of penalties than Mr.Padhi and the number of cases in which he has decided in favour of the appellants are about as many as Mr.Padhi’s own. And yet in the estimation of the authors, Mr.Padhi is one of the five best Commissioners and Mr.Bhorge is one of the five worst under Pro-disclosure category and Overall Public Satisfaction category”.

The award-fixing was so certain that the so-called Secretariat of the Foundation had congratulated Padhi for having been adjudged “best” amongst CICs. As Prof. Ansari’s analysis hit the internet and RTI activists started censoring the report of the jury, the so-called Secretariat of the Foundation has issued a Press Statement to say that it had not congratulated a CIC on being adjudged “best” in ranking.

The statement begins thus: “National RTI Awards Secretariat denies it has “congratulated” some information commissioners for being “best” or “topping the rankings” of information commissions

… and clarifies that rankings, released by the Secretariat to the media on October 21, 2009, are interim rankings, subject to change in the coming days; final rankings will be decided by the Jury on November 27, 2009”.

This quoted portion of the statement being the Foundation’s official version, one is at loss to understand as to why certain words are suppressed under dots in the second paragraph. Read with a State Commission tampering with its own website as exposed in these pages under our caption “Orissa CIC embarrasses the State by suspected self-glorification” on November 10, 2009, these undefined dots in the preceding paragraph generate fear that a few RTI activists, hand-in-glove with fellows suffering obviously from recognition crisis amongst the implementation executives , have taken the nation for granted and have used the fine art of manipulation in the award fixing business, all in the name of democracy.

Whether or not the so-called Jury changes its earlier decision on November 27, the RTI movement has already been injured under the award mania.

It would be proper for Government of India to instantly ban any award of cash prize and / or citation for any Information Commissioner by any individual or outfit. It would also be proper to ban acceptance of any such cash prize or honor by any in the RTI implementation machinery. But it would be more appropriate for Information Commissioners to stay away from receiving any such award from any private or official entity as sanctity of RTI movement needs to be protected in the greatest interest of democracy.

By Zahid Gishkori

Source: http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/22-Nov-2009/Murder-embezzlement–balwa-amongst-the-pardoned-crimes/1

ISLAMABAD – List of beneficiaries of National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) released by Ministry of Law and Justice on Saturday took the top politicians of the state to task and perceived them as black sheep of the society.
Some 34 politicians have been ranked first in the list of some 8,041 persons in terms of money, murders, attempted murders, balwa, embezzlement, corruption, malpractice, terrorism, kidnappings and other crimes of heinous nature. Keeping in view their massive embezzlements, these politicians seem to be heavy burden on the country that is already facing a severe financial crunch.
The Law Ministry for the first time has brought the big fish to surface by releasing the list of country’s most corrupt people. “The notorious guns of malpractice of these black sheep which left the poor at the mercy of God had been used as common practice against the innocents since decades,” NRO list observed.
The top beneficiary of NRO is Altaf Hussain whose 72 cases including 31 murder cases were dismissed. President Asif Ali Zardari had seven cases against him, while the number of Dr Farooq Sattar’s cases was 13. Most politicians had one to two cases against them. Madam Nusrat Bhutto, the spouse of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, also heads over thousands in the notorious list.
The MQM headed over other political parties whose workers hit the iron when it was hot. However, the PML-Q workers kept them away from that shoddy practice.
Addressing a press conference, Minister of State for Law & Justice Mohammad Afzal Sindhu on Saturday released the much-awaited list of the beneficiaries of NRO. The total number of NRO beneficiaries is 8,041 and 34 top politicians, 248 bureaucrats and three ambassadors are included in it, he told.
“Corruption, embezzlement and criminal cases dumped under NRO will likely to be reopened, as the goose of the said ordinance will be cooked on November 28, 2009,” he said. Many stalwarts of the country’s political arena will fight legal battle in the courts as the top court of the country terms NRO null ab initio, he explained.
Sindhu also announced a few important names in the list, which include President Asif Ali Zardari, MQM Chief Altaf Hussain, Begam Nusrat Bhutto, Federal Ministers Ch. Ahmad Mukhtar, Rehman Malik, Dr. Farooq Sattar, and Babar Ghori, Governor Sindh Dr. Ishrat-ul-Ibad Khan, Jahangir Badr, Anwar Saifullah, Yousaf Talpur, Ch. Shaukat Ali, Haji Nawaz Khokhar (late), Agha Siraj Ahmad Durrani, Mir Baz Kithran, Mushtaq Awan, Sulman Farooqi, Hussain Haqqani, Wajid Sham-ul-Hassan, A.R. Siddiqui, Saleem Shahzad, Aftab Ahmed Sherpao, Mian Mohammad Rasheed, Tariq Rasheed, Tariq Mahmood, Sardar Maqsood Leghari, Ghani-ur-Rehman, Javed Ahmed Qureshi, Brig. (Retd) Imtiaz, Brig. (Retd) Aslam Hayat, Safdar Barqi and Saeed Mehdi.

“Sindh is on the bottom line in the said list as some 7,793 people obtained relief under Article 2 of the NRO’s Review Board. The number of beneficiaries of the Review Board is 3,230,” he said.
He said that neither Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani nor his wife had taken benefit under the NRO. “Prime Minister Gilani had opted to face the courts in the cases filed against him and he has been cleared by the courts,” he argued.
The minister said that President Zardari had protection under the Article 248 of the Constitution and couldn’t be tried in any corruption or criminal case as far as he was the President of the state. “We will not protect anyone against the decision of the Supreme Court,” he maintained. The ruling PPP has taken decision that the judgement of superior judiciary would be accepted at all cost, he added.
Parrying a query when asked how much amount was involved in corruption cases abolished against beneficiaries of NRO, Sindhu said, “The demand was the list and it is produced before the media.”
Advocating NRO beneficiaries, he said most of the cases were political vendetta and had been lingering in the courts for 10 to 15 years. “PML-N Quaid Mian Nawaz Sharif has himself admitted that Ehtesab Bureau of Saifur Rehman had initiated political cases against PPP leaders,” he added. The PPP would have to give credibility to the chief of a major political party, he remarked.
The notorious NRO granted amnesty to politicians, political workers and bureaucrats who were accused of corruption, embezzlement, money laundering, murders and terrorism from 1st January 1986 to October 12, 1999, he emphasised.
The State Minister for Law said the myriad corruption cases had been pending since decades, adding only one case was decided and after that three judges had to resign.
Answering a query, he said NRO was brought in the Parliament at the direction of the Supreme Court and the verdicts of the higher judiciary would be respected in future as well.

Source: http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Lahore/22-Nov-2009/Wajih-asks-SC-to-act-against-NRO-beneficiaries

LAHORE – National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) is against the fundamental rights and letter and spirit of the constitution. The Supreme Court should start proceedings against the corrupt bureaucrats and politician who benefited from the ordinance.
Judiciary till now is partially independent but it is hoped that it will assert its authority without bowing before any pressure.
Justice (r) Wajihuddin Ahmed said this while addressing a news conference at Lahore Press Club on Saturday.
He said it was expected that the judiciary would start proceedings at the earliest against those who looted the national wealth and got a clean chit from a military dictator under the NRO.
He opined that Feb 2008 general elections were not fully representative as lawyers, civil society and a number of political parties had boycotted the process and the nation was now expecting midterm elections.
“It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to take up the petitions against the NRO beneficiaries on its expiry after Nov 28 deadline,” Wajih remarked, adding that it would be really difficult for the courts to open all the cases in absence of any proper prosecuting agency.
He maintained that the time had come for the emergence of alternate political leadership at the national level from amongst the leaders of lawyers’ movement and civil society.
About the immunity enjoyed by President Asif Ali Zardari, he opined that the constitution was like living organism while Article 248 being a its cancer body which give undue protection to the president and the governors. He demanded the apex court to abolish Article 248 from the Constitution as it was against the all the principles of justice and basic human rights.

Claiming that the lawyers’ movement is still alive, he said its next target was to ensure rule of law and supremacy of the Constitution while helping the judiciary in playing its role for providing of justice to the masses. He hoped that an alternate leadership would come forward from amongst the lawyers to fill the gap of political leadership at national level.
“Corruption is prevalent in lower judiciary as known means of income do not make with their (judicial officials) standard of living,” he said, adding that salary packages at the lower level should be increased.
Wajih was of the view that because of absence of any check clerical staff of sessions and civil courts received bribes openly.
He demanded amending the judicial policy and asked the higher judiciary to keep an eye on the state of affairs at the lower level.
He also suggested making the budget of judiciary independent just like the army in view of sensitive nature of its work and claimed that it improve judges’ stature in the eyes of the public.
Eid holidays
Punjab University will remain closed from Friday Nov 27 to Monday November 30, 2009 on account of Eid-ul-Azha.

That, marriage has become tumultuous, for Indian men, is no longer a hidden fact as evident from the huge media coverage given to men’s rights activists recently. And the myth about marriage, as projected in Indian context – “Blissful for men and torturous for women” – is coming to its logical end with the rise of men’s rights organizations like the Save Indian Family Foundation, the All India Men’s Welfare Association, etc.

A lot of false propaganda had been done by radical gender based extremists about women facing problems in marriage to the tune that unconstitutional and anti-male laws have been framed to finish off men systematically. And because male-disposability comes natural to the society these whimsical stories about men as oppressors and women as oppressed were never challenged.

This led to severe problems of men and they were under-reported as well because the society was not ready to accept men as weak otherwise who would risk their lives to protect the society. Every man on earth has faced this bias at some point of his life and he is trained to accept it as a way of life.

As a result male suicides increased a lot and at the same time the society holding men responsible for everything increased their expectations from them. One of the worst expectations was the PRIMARY FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY the severity of which often goes under-reported. Men think it’s their duty and tolerate the abuse therein. And divorce proceedings are the worse that a man has to go through in India.

In addition to facing the mental stress, a man has to fight several false cases in multiple jurisdictions, pay maintenance and alimony to estranged wives who leave no stone unturned in ruining the reputation of the man by spreading false rumors about him. And the most unnoticed abuse of men is the financial abuse wherein invariably men are forced to pay hefty alimonies irrespective of wife’s fault.

But one such man has turned the tables. It’s Kalaisevan from Chennai who has sought 25 Lakhs in alimony from his well-settled wife because he lost all his fortunes due to the false cases she filed on him. Read the news here.

This is path breaker news as it is the first step towards breaking the myth that under all circumstances, ubiquitously and stereotypically men have to shell out aristocratic alimonies to their estranged wives irrespective of the man’s sufficient means and the woman’s earning potential. Kalai has taken an exemplary and revolutionary step to show the world how to demand your right as a man.

If many other men start following suit shunning inhibitions of being a male then the movement of men’s rights has no impedance. However, most men do not do it because they are Stolid; whereas even if they have not contributed anything to the marriage, women feel no qualms in demanding a fortune from the man because women are Sordid.

And currently marriage between this set of Stolid Men and Sordid Women has become like a necessary evil for men. Because the current socio-financial structures are so placed that a man without marriage is not considered complete. Young men are thrown into marriage otherwise they are denied a dignified social life unless they are extremely high achievers like Abdul Kalam Azad or Atal Behari Vajpayee.

That means that an ordinary man has to marry and has to bow down before his wife (courtesy Supreme Court judge Markenday Katju) or else face a social death. Most of the banks, financial institutions, and insurance companies force men to make their wives as beneficiaries. This is imposition on men. When the society does not protect and respect the basic rights of a man, it has no right or Locus Standi whatsoever to impose things on a man as well.

Non-funded men’s helplines like the Save Indian Family Foundation and the All India Men’s Welfare Association receive about 10,000 calls a month from distressed men most of whom who contemplate suicidal tendencies.

So in a nutshell, if a man does not marry or remains separated / divorced he faces a social death and in marriage he has no protection and is expected to tolerate a tumultuous marriage or else face legal wrath. All in all, men need to be liberated from this cobweb of imposed responsibilities and constant struggle to survive.

And the only way to this liberation is to close down the institution of marriage and this has to be done by men only. As long as marriage – in its current form – exists there is no respite in sight for men. Choice lies with men.

With Kalai’s bold step of asking alimony from wife for ruining his life, he has molten the tip of the iceberg, with men deciding not to marry the iceberg will melt.

Scottish legal website threatened by Lord Advocate over abuse story claims. Earlier this week, in what may very well be a turning point in a Grampian Police investigation into reports of the alleged existence of a ‘paedophile gang’ in the Aberdeen area which is claimed to have abused several victims including a down’s syndrome girl, the well known Scottish legal magazine website “The Firm” was ordered by the Crown Office to take down two reports it published into the case.

The Firm – Reports were taken down after ‘legal threats’ from the Crown Office

Scottish Law Reporter carried the story of what happened at “The Firm” here : ‘The Firm’ censored, now apologise over Lord Advocate ‘allegations’ in Hollie Greig abuse scandal as Police investigate Aberdeen Paedophile ring along with their initial report on very disturbing allegations made by the victim, Hollie Greig and her mother Anne, to Grampian Police, which is covered, here : Down’s syndrome victim identifies Sheriff & Police in Aberdeen Paedophile ring as Grampian Police investigate claims of historical abuse

The Firm’s coverage, I cannot report .. but the verbatim reports as published, and now withdrawn apparently after intervention from the Crown Office itself, can be found online with a quick google search, or HERE. The ‘apology’ the Firm published, almost sounding like it was written under duress, is here : Lord Advocate “not involved, no connection, unaware” in decision not to prosecute paedophile ring 10 years ago

It is of course, in the public interest that any allegations of such a serious nature are fully investigated, and if found to be substantiated, anyone identified must feel the full weight of the law, and the considerable media attention which normally accompanies such scandals. However, is the public interest served by threatening the media into a silence of blacked out pages ? I think not.

Hollie is without doubt, due to no fault of her own, a vulnerable human being, and it is the duty of us all to care for those who are in such circumstances. If that care has failed, we have all failed, and those in office who are charged with protecting us from such failures, have failed the most.

Hollie is, as we have all tragically seen with headline after headline. not alone in being let down by a system designed to protect children & vulnerable adults from serious abuse, but one very serious consistency which always seems to come out of any inquiry into a case, be it abuse, or even a death from abuse such as the horrendous Baby P case in England … many of those who were responsible by job & position for protecting against such crimes, tend to escape any penalty for their administrative failures …

With regard to these failures, I think we all need to be reminded of the infamous, and equally horrendous “Miss X” abuse scandal from the Scottish Borders, where a vulnerable woman with learning disabilities was systematically raped & abused for years, until the media intervened, followed by Christine Grahame MSP, which eventually led to prosecutions & guilty verdicts on those who committed the crimes against Miss X.

However, the efforts to cover up Scottish Borders Council’s lack of action in the Miss X abuse scandal, were quite stunning at the time, with the same threats made from certain quarters to those who were publicising the case, and tales of reports & files being removed, in what many construed as a concerted effort to hide the truth. Eventually, ‘improvements’ were made to social care in the Scottish Borders, but, apart from the successful prosecutions, little in the way of heads rolled in official positions, for Miss X’s years of abuse, suffered just a few hundred yards away from the Council’s own headquarters in St Boswells.

Sources of media & reports from the Miss X investigation, along with statements to the Scottish Parliament by Scottish Government Ministers can be viewed here : Inquiry Reports & Media (Miss X Abuse Scandal Scottish Borders)

Aberdeen’s Press & Journal newspaper report that Grampian Police have re-interviewed Hollie & her mother, and are now investigating the case. Let us hope that along with a Police investigation, comes the necessary full inquiry to establish the facts of the case, why some feel that silence & censorship is applicable, rather than serving the interests of justice, and why it may very well be that as a nation we are still failing to protecting those among us who need our protection.

Bengaluru, Nov. 20: When a city police inspector claims that he was in two different places at a given time on the same day, something seems to have gone terribly wrong.

The officer is A. Manjunath, currently serving as police inspector with city special branch. He was inspector at Yeshwanthpur police station when the incident happened in 2007.

According to the station diary, Manjunath was at the station and with an accused, writing a panchnama at the same time. On another day, he claims he was busy recording the statement of five witnesses, while his official papers say he was on leave, sanctioned by none other than his DGP!

The police also seems to have duped the court by submitting a dead man’s witness statement, which made the court even issue summons asking the deceased to be present for the hearing.

Mr R. Kumar (name changed) was accused of dowry harassment by his wife who visited the station on July 26, 2007. “She filed a complaint at 1.45 pm. Inspector Manjunath claims he visited my residence between 2 pm and four pm on the same day for panchanama. But his station diary shows he was present in the station till 4 pm”, claimed Kumar.

Again, Manjunath claims that he recorded the statements of five witnesses on July 30, 2007 including one of a doctor. “But his office files say he was in Mysore after getting two days’ leave, sanctioned by his DGP,” said Kumar.

More intriguing is the fact that one of the witnesses had died the previous day on July 29, after he spent more than 10 hours in coma. So how did the inspector took his statement?

According to R. Kumar, the trouble begun soon after his wife filed the dowry harassment complaint. “Just one month after our marriage, I realised that my wife was suffering from a sexually transmitted disease. On questioning her, she admitted to a premarital affair with another man” he said.

Later, she returned to her parents after a gynaecologist advised her treatment. “We mutually decided to go for a divorce and approached the family court in 2005. But I was shocked when she filed a dowry harassment complaint against me” said 32-year-old Kumar, a private company employee.

He also alleged that Manjunath not only detained him illegally for a day, but pestered him to shell out money to ‘settle the issue’.

“Dejected over the false allegations, my 62-year-old father attempted suicide by consuming poison. Instead of showing some mercy, the Yeshwanthapur police even threatened to arrest me”, says Kumar, who later approached Lokayukta with all the documents, which he obtained with the help of RTI. According to Kumar, Lokayukta asked the police officer about obtaining a dead man’s statement on which Manjunath claimed he took his statement on July 29, 2007, hours before he died. “Again his office records say he was on bundobust duty following a strike by KSRTC employees” said Kumar.

The investigating police officials have erred right from the FIR to the witness statement” claimed Kumar.

When contacted, Manjunath said the confusion over the date was because of a technical and manual error. “The computer operator wrongly entered the date as July 30 instead of July 29. In a hurry, I signed a letter dated July 30,” he said. He however refused to comment further on the issue.