YOURSAY ‘Can Gani Patail please explain why he did not allow Karpal Singh, who volunteered to prosecute VK Lingam?’

Anwar's objection frivolous and pathetic, says Zaid

Aries46: Former law minister Zaid Ibrahim’s sudden dive into the Sodomy II saga is somewhat surprising and his defence of the attorney-general is even more bizarre considering that Zaid opted to join Anwar Ibrahim and PKR as an appointed exco member (during the Sodomy II era) when shown the door in Umno and has continued as an opposition supporter even as recently as GE13.

Regardless of the merits/demerits of his current stand, his sudden turnaround in support of a blatant persecution of the opposition leader questions his real motive considering that this disgraceful sodomy circus is not only a bane to Malaysians but a curse on the image of this nation.

Long-suffering Malaysians are sick and tired and couldn’t care two hoots for these sadistic regime’s scripted charades where the outcomes are invariably a foregone conclusion.

Flip-flopping Zaid is pathetic in wanting to have his cake and eat it too. It is time he stopped playing politics and grew up and made up his mind on what exactly is his mission in life.

Hang Babeuf: But Zaid is right. Why must people always rush to some legalistic means to stop somebody doing something that they do not like? Why not be intelligent instead?

A judge must be impartial. A counsel in court is not under that same obligation. PKR, PAS, DAP, the opposition generally have been placed under tremendous legal disability in recent times by being denied the opportunity, and right, to be represented in court by the lawyer of their choice.

Remember Perak 2009? The ousted speaker? The ousted MB? Recall what happened a week or so ago in the Kelantan election petition cases? If that is your principled position, and it must be, then you can't say that the AG may not use the counsel of his choice too.

Instead you contest the matter, which is political, not legally but politically. You say: no such appeal is plausible. It must be even more implausible when it is brought under conditions where the government and AG's own actions prove it to be a partisan political move.

Odin: Zaid, one is appreciative of your enlightening of the hoi-polloi not only with regard to the Attorney-General’s Chambers being overflowing with incompetents but also of the desire of Umno Baru to nail Anwar Ibrahim, his innocence or otherwise inconsequential.

You ought to ingratiate yourself further with lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, so that he will take you on as his assistant. Doubtless he will appreciate some help from your great legal mind.

You will then not only earn many a pretty penny but also be deliriously ecstatic in helping to put Anwar away. Who knows? There may even be a Sodomy III; therefore, there may be yet more money to be made.

Ksn: As far as the AG's Chambers is concerned, this outsourcing is a pathetic reflection on the AG and his officers - that there is not even one competent enough to do this job, unwanted as it is, including the AG himself. Clearly, the chambers is bloated with many but not one up to the job.

But that assessment of yours, Zaid, while correct, is that not the story, the reality of our entire civil services? Bloated by 45 percent in excess of requirement for a country of ours in proportion to the population.

Merit, competency, integrity, devotion to duties, incorruptibility, all aspects of the civil service are absent. But then, that situation, bad for Malaysia, is a political decision for and by Umno Baru, right?

Lim Chong Leong: "If you allow this sort of objections, then everyone can object to a lawyer, saying he or she dislikes me," said Zaid. This is a poor analogy.

It is not a civil case where people are free to appoint their lawyers and the opponents have no right to object unless there is real conflict of interest.

Here it is the government's prosecution who is supposed to carry out its duties objectively, appoints the lawyer of the opponents and sworn rivals of the accused. How then can the AG's Chambers maintain its objectivity?

This objectivity will cause the AG to withdraw the case if evidence warrants it. Will the tainted AG's appointee do that or will it pursue the case like a rabid dog under instructions from its more valuable and ever powerful client?

Questions like this taints the good office of the AG.

Vijay47: One would expect the judiciary to be the font of justice where the guilty would earn his just desserts and the innocent set free. This pursuit of justice comes with unbiased minds weighing the evidence tendered and the replies to questions even the judge may ask.

But for some rare exceptions, Malaysia's legal process has been found wanting in almost every facet, the worst being the Altantuya Shaariibuu trial where all the three parties involved seemed united in their quest to obstruct.

One of the wretched individuals of that shameful episode is this very same Shafee. Do not flatter yourself, Shafee, it is not your legal skills that Anwar is apprehensive about but rather your cunning and sly ways.

Were it just ability, the defence team is more than a match for you. When the AG does a most unusual move in engaging someone from outside his chambers, such is Abdul Gani Patail's image that serious suspicions are aroused.

What will the AG do next - appoint Dr Mahathir Mohamad as the judge?

Mr KJ John: Zaid, you are comparing apples and oranges. You like the outsourcing as a principle, but the defendant's lawyers are objecting to the specific outsourced person, not the principle of out-sourcing. Let us not confuse issues

Ferdtan: Mr KJ John, well said. It is surprising that Zaid Ibrahim, a lawyer, cannot see the wood for the trees. Was the objection by the defence lawyers to the appointment of Muhammad Shafee Abdullah made on the point of outsourcing? No, it was not.

It was as Mr KL John said; it was that specific person they were objecting. Anwar’s lawyers must have reasons to object to Shafee’s appointment as he may be prejudiced in this case. Period.

Zaid, you should know this well: “Justice must not only be done, but it must be seen to be done”. Considerable leeway must be given to a defendant and not to DPP or even a judge if justice is to be seen to be done.

Heck, the accused is the one fighting for his life in the court case and not the impersonal officials who are paid to do the job. That is my understanding as a layman. Isn’t it similar when a dependent can object to any particular sitting judge for his or her case?

How naive can lawyer Zaid be when he said, “If you allow this sort of objections, then everyone can object to a lawyer, saying he or she dislikes me?” Points of facts and justifications have to be given to the judge before they can raise the objection.

I wonder what Zaid said is “sub judice” to the case as it is still before a judge or court awaiting judicial determination. Can he be charged for contempt of court? Will the judge be influenced with what he had just said?

Thequest: In my humble opinion, the matter to be proven should not be whether sodomy was involved or not, as I feel sodomy itself may not be a crime.

The case must have more to do with whether criminal force was used against the complainant and whether the complaint was motivated by political interests.

Hermit: Suddenly Zaid has sprung to the bright daylight. I guess he has seen Anwar's days are numbered. It's no secret that Zaid has been testing the soft ground of PKR but in vain as long as Anwar is around.

The doors to Umno land had been bolted and leaving only PKR to cherishing Zaid's dreams to the high castle.

AngryBird: Can Gani Patail please explain why he did not allow Karpal Singh, who volunteered to prosecute VK Lingam? Please Gani, stop being a hypocrite.

Angry Monkey: And why they did not outsource the Altantuya case?

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now .