Mar 8, 2014 | News
The ICJ today condemned as a miscarriage of justice, Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s conviction on sodomy charges.
The ICJ said the overturning of his 2012 High Court acquittal — following an appeal by the Malaysian government — by a Court of Appeal panel contravenes international human rights standards and the rule law.
“The ICJ condemns the use of the colonial-era Article 377B of the Malaysian Penal Code, which prohibits consensual same-sex sexual conduct, in conflict with international standards regarding respect for the right to privacy,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
“This article is seldom used in Malaysia, but this is the second time it has been used to convict Anwar, and both times its use seemed clearly motivated to hobble his ability to challenge the government as a politician.”
The sodomy charges against Anwar, which date back to 2008, were dismissed by the High Court on 9 January 2012, but the Court of Appeal today overturned that acquittal and instead sentenced Anwar to five years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal ruling took less than two hours.
The ICJ has been observing the proceedings in what has been called Anwar’s ‘Sodomy 2’ trial. ICJ Commissioner Justice Elizabeth Evatt AC, from the Australian High Court and a former member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, was at the Court of Appeal today on behalf of the ICJ.
“This decision certainly casts doubts on the independence and impartiality of the Malaysian judiciary and tarnishes the reputation of the country’s legal system,” said Zarifi.
The judgement means Anwar will not be able to run for election in a local state seat later this month.
After sentencing, Anwar’s lawyers were successful in arguing for a stay in execution and bail, pending appeal.
CONTACT
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 807819002, e-mail: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Craig Knowles, ICJ Media & Communications, (Bangkok), t:+66 819077653, e-mail: craig.knowles(a)icj.org
Feb 21, 2014 | News
The Kuala Lumpur High Court’s decision today to convict prominent Malaysian lawyer Karpal Singh on charges of sedition is inconsistent with international law and standards regarding free expression of opinion by lawyers, the ICJ said.
“This conviction sends a message that lawyers in Malaysia are not free to express their opinions about legal issues,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Adviser on Southeast Asia.
Karpal Singh’s conviction was based on the fact that during a press conference held at his law firm in early 2009 he had spoken allegedly “seditious words” when questioned about whether Sultan Azlan Shah had the legal authority to remove the province’s Chief Minister, Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, from office.
“This case is another sign of the lack of respect of the Malaysian government for the principle of free expression,” said Gil. “Karpal Singh was expressing an opinion in his capacity as a lawyer over a matter of law. He has every right to do that, as a lawyer, and of course as someone exercising his right to free expression of his views. He also has acted in fulfilment of a core function of the legal profession, which is to contribute to the public discourse on matters of law.”
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers specifically provide that lawyers, like ordinary citizens, are entitled to freedom of opinion and expression. They have the right “to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights” without fear of suffering professional restrictions or repercussions due to their lawful action.
The High Court has fixed 7 March 2014 to hear Karpal’s mitigating circumstances, and for sentencing.
Under section 4(1) of the 1948 Sedition Act, Karpal Singh now faces a fine of up to RM 5,000 (approximately US$1,5010) and/or imprisonment of up to three years.
The conviction may force Karpal Singh to give up his seat as a member of the Malaysian parliament. Under the Federal Constitution, an elected representative is disqualified from office if fined more than RM 2,000 or jailed for a term exceeding one year.
Karpal Singh has provided legal defense in several high profile cases, including that of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, whose trial on charges of ‘sodomy’ has drawn heavy criticism in Malaysia and internationally.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66 2 619 8477; email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Craig Knowles, ICJ Media Consultant, t +66 81 9077653; email:craig.knowles(a)icj.org
Feb 13, 2014 | News
The ICJ continued its observation of the trial of Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim on sodomy charges under the colonial-era Section 377B of the Penal Code, which criminalizes consensual same-sex sexual relations.
ICJ Commissioner Justice Elizabeth Evatt AC, the first woman judge to be appointed to an Australian Federal Court and a former member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, observed a hearing on the appeal of Anwar Ibrahim at the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya yesterday.
“The ICJ will continue to monitor this case and evaluate the fairness of the proceedings in light of relevant international standards,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ international legal advisor for Southeast Asia. “The ICJ will also assess whether the prosecution under Section 377 is being used in this case to suppress political dissent, contrary to the right to freedom of expression.”
The hearing is an appeal against the High Court’s decision on 9 January 2012, which acquitted Anwar Ibrahim of sodomy.
“The ICJ has previously condemned Malaysia’s continuing use of colonial-era criminal charges of ‘sodomy’ to cover even consensual sexual relations between adults,” Gil said. “The ICJ believes that Article 377B of the Malaysian Penal Code is inconsistent with respect for the right to privacy under international standards.”
The Court of Appeal heard and eventually dismissed an interlocutory application filed by the lawyers of Anwar Ibrahim seeking to recall for testimony Jude Blacious s/o Pereira, the investigating officer and key witness in the sodomy case.
Pereira was recently found unfit to be a practicing lawyer in another case in a High Court decision of 10 January 2014.
In that decision, the High Court relied on a 2009 Human Rights Commission of Malaysia’s (SUHAKAM) report, which determined Pereira to be an unreliable witness in a public inquiry established to investigate the arrest and detention of 5 legal aid lawyers.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the application on the grounds that Anwar Ibrahim had failed to satisfy the court that additional evidence in the appellate stage was necessary in dispensing justice and that it fell in the category of “most exceptional” cases, particularly as the SUHAKAM report had already been available since 2009.
The Court of Appeal postponed the hearing on the appeal itself to allow Anwar Ibrahim’s lawyers to file a notice of appeal with the Federal Court on the dismissal of the interlocutory order.
Anwar Ibrahim’s counsel immediately filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Court on the dismissed interlocutory application.
The case management for the sodomy appeal has been fixed on 28 February 2014.
The appeal proper was initially scheduled on 17 and 18 September 2013 but has faced continuous delays due to a series of interlocutory matters.
Feb 6, 2014 | News
The ICJ calls on the Government of Malaysia to stop the execution of death row prisoner Chandran, apparently scheduled to take place on Friday 7 February.
Chandran was convicted for murder and sentenced to death on 16 April 2008.
While the Government of Malaysia has not publicly released the date, according to the Malaysian Bar Council, his execution is planned to take place on 7 February 2014.
Despite the prohibition of mandatory death sentences under international human rights law, the laws in Malaysia maintain the mandatory death sentence for offences such as murder, treason and drug trafficking.
The Malaysian Bar Council, a partner organization of the ICJ, has noted that there have been several instances in the past when the Government of Malaysia indicated that it would review the mandatory death penalty, with a view to its possible abolition or the possible reintroduction of a discretionary death penalty. It has also indicated its intention of reviewing the penalty of death for drug-related offenses.
“Considering prohibition of the mandatory death penalty in international human rights law and the past indications made by the Government of Malaysia that it intends to review the imposition of mandatory death penalty, it is deeply concerning that it still aims to proceed with the execution of Chandran on Friday,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
In October 2013, Malaysia underwent their second Universal Periodic Review where it was urged by several countries to review the mandatory nature of death penalty, maintain a moratorium, and ultimately move to abolish the death penalty.
Malaysia is set to respond to these recommendations in March 2014.
The Malaysian Bar Council estimates that there are approximately 900 prisoners in death row in Malaysia awaiting execution.
The ICJ considers that the use of the death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
In addition to calling a halt to the execution of Chandran, the ICJ urges the Government of Malaysia to amend its laws and take steps towards the abolition of the death penalty in the country, including the implementation of a moratorium.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66 2 619 8477; email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Craig Knowles, ICJ Media Consultant, t +66 81 9077653; email: craig.knowles(a)icj.org
Nov 26, 2013 | News
The ICJ is calling on the Malaysian Government to immediately drop the criminal charge against human rights defender Lena Hendry for screening the film ‘No Fire Zone: the Killing Fields of Sri Lanka.’
The case has been fixed for case management and the defence lawyers filed an application to set aside, permanently stay or quash the charges against Lena Hendry.
“Subjecting Lena Hendry to criminal prosecution simply for screening a documentary violates her rights and contravenes Malaysia’s obligations to uphold freedom of expression,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia-Pacific Regional Director.
On 3 July 2013, Pusat Komas, a Malaysian human rights advocacy organization where Lena Hendry works, and Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall Civil Right Committee (KLSCAH CRC) screened the film “No Fire Zone”, a documentary on the war crimes and human rights abuses allegedly committed at the end of the Sri Lankan civil war in 2009.
Immediately following the screening, 30 officers from the Malaysian Ministry of Home Affairs and the police entered the hall and recorded the identity of all persons who attended the event.
The authorities then arrested Lena Hendry and two colleagues, Anna Har and Arul Prakash, and interrogated them for three hours at Dang Wangi police station.
On 19 September 2013, Lena Hendry was charged under section 6(1)(b) of the Film Censorship Act 2002 for showing a film that had not been approved by the Board of Censors.
If found guilty, she could be fined up to RM30,000 (approximately USD 9,322) and sentenced to up to three years imprisonment.
“The Malaysian government told the UN Human Rights Council during its universal periodic review that it maintains a ‘strong commitment to the rule of law, to upholding respect for human rights, and…widening the democratic space”, said Sam Zarifi. “That commitment is inconsistent with prosecuting human rights defenders for disseminating documentary human rights information.”
Under international law and standards, Malaysia must respect the right to freedom of expression of all persons, including the right to seek and impart information of all kinds.
In the case of human rights defenders, the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders imposes a special duty on States not only to respect this right, but also to protect those who exercise this right through their exposure of human rights violations.
The ICJ calls on the Malaysian Government to safeguard freedom of expression and uphold the right of individuals to expose and disseminate information on human rights questions, including the documentation of human rights abuses.
