Did you know?
I didn’t either but that’s not the topic of this post.
SRC TRIAL: AG files application to ban Najib from Facebook
While PH mahacais get excited with sensational misleading headlines, most of us — the rational ones — rely on Najib’s Facebook postings for true facts omitted by the media. This has cause great anxiety and frustration not only for PH leaders and supporters but also AG Tommy Thomas in particular.
I wrote about this:
- AG Tommy wants Najib to apologise for telling the truth on Facebook
- Kes SRC: Kemunafikan dan kebodohan AG Tommy Thomas menuntut Najib mohon maaf kerana berfesbuk
Now the AG has made a formal application to the court. The AG’s affidavit complained:
“This is clearly sub judice.”
“The posting was also intended to garner support from the public to pressure and influence the court.”
What’s the matter with Tommy Thomas? Didn’t Tommy himself say before:
“… bear in mind we do not have a jury. Again, you know, members of the Bar know my position for years.
I have never accepted the principle of sub-judice. The principle of sub-judice does not exist in Malaysia because juries don’t exist.
If judges of Malaysia – all the judges of Malaysia – are professional career full-time judges… if the judges of Malaysia are influenced by what they read, they should not be on the bench. If the Attorney-General of the day is influenced by what he reads, the press and what people say, he shouldn’t be in the job. So I assure you those factors are never taken into account by me.“
By his own words, Tommy is insulting the judge because he assumes that the judge will be influenced by Najib’s Facebook postings and so should not be on the bench. Tommy claims he would never take such “sub judicial” factors into account but he doesn’t seem to trust the judge doing the same.
Indeed when AG Tommy first complained about Najib explaining his credit card purchases on Facebook, the judge replied:
“Permohanan ini amat kabur… Tidak ada penjelasan tentang apa yang ofensif atau apa yang boleh dianggap sub judice” (Hakim Mohd Nazlan)
AG Tommy is desperate because he has failed to prove the vague and convoluted charges he brought upon Najib with smoke and mirrors. Whereas Najib’s brief and simple explanations on Facebook have given the public a clear picture of the truth.
As reported by FMT on 26/7/2019:
The prosecution is seeking a court order to stop Najib from posting similar statements based on evidence presented in the trial.
It said Najib must remove a Facebook post on his credit card spendings as mentioned in the trial.
In the post, Najib said his credit card was used to purchase gifts for a member of the royal family, saying it was a norm to present gifts to foreign dignitaries.
Najib merely explained what the media did not report. Is Tommy kidding that Najib must remove his Facebook posting for merely explaining his credit purchases?
Heck, so many people post on Facebook what they buy, eat and cook and all you need to do is click the like, love, laugh, cry, ‘wow‘ or angry button or ignore their FB status instead of filing a complaint in court.
I supposed AG Tommy might have tried asking PH cybertroopers to report Najib’s postings but that didn’t work because even the pro DAP Facebook Malaysia knows that banning Najib would make them look like idiots.
Tommy is obviously and truly terrified that his flimsy case is falling apart when true facts are revealed.
ADIB INQUEST: AG denies interfering, calls dad’s conclusion on affidavit “mischievous”
AG Tommy Thomas claims he was not involved in the filing of the affidavit that Adib was not beaten but it’s nothing more than a bare denial.
SHAH ALAM, July 24 (Bernama) — Attorney-General (AG) Tommy Thomas said today that he never issued instructions to former Deputy Public Prosecutor Hamdan Hamzah to file an affidavit in the Court of Appeal over the death of firefighter Muhammad Adib Mohd Kassim.
Thomas said this in reply to an ex-parte application made by Muhammad Adib’s father, Mohd Kassim Abdul Hamid on July 16, where he accused the AG of contempt and interfering in the inquest into his son’s death before the court decision.
The nation’s head prosecutor also said that he did not direct or instruct daily tasks to the 1,200 legal officers under him.
“In this regard, anything that was affirmed and filed by Hamdan in Muhammad Adib’s inquest proceedings was within his area of duty and job scope.”
Thomas also said he did not meet Hamdan and the affidavit filed with regard to Adib’s inquest were not under his direct instructions.
“Therefore, the applicant’s (Mohd Kassim) response and conclusion he formed against Hamdan’s affidavit was “mischievous” and was without any basis or merit,” added the AG.
Earlier today, the Shah Alam Coroner’s Court set Aug 9 as the date to hear preliminary issues over Mohd Kassim’s ex-parte application.
In the application, he claimed that Thomas was in contempt through an affidavit he filed through the AG’s Chambers on April 3, which claimed that the cause of Muhammad Adib’s death was not because he was beaten up by rioters.
Muhammad Adib, 24, who was a member of the Subang Jaya Fire and Rescue Service Emergency Service Unit (EMRS), was seriously injured in the riot at Sri Maha Mariamman Temple, USJ 25, Subang Jaya on Nov 27 last year and died on Dec 17 at the National Heart Institute.
First of all, I don’t believe AG Mohan or AG Tommy — or whatever his real name — is telling the whole truth. And he’s got the gall to call Adib’s father “mischievous”. If anyone has been mischievous it has been Tommy himself.
AG Tommy claimed that the filing of the affidavit by his DPP (that Adib was not beaten) was not under his direct instruction.
Well, why didn’t he also say nor was there any indirect instruction? If he wanted to avoid doubt he should have said there was no instruction given, direct or indirect. Instead he is leaving room for himself to be able to deny that he lied should evidence emerge that the filing of the affidavit was with his blessing or without his objection or with his silent approval.
Regardless, Tommy’s claim of innocence cannot be accepted solely on the basis of his claim on whether he gave any instruction, direct or indirect. Did he make any suggestion? Was there any discussion at all? Did he have knowledge of what his DPP was going to do? Was it with his silent approval? If later we find it was evidently so, then he can of course later claim he merely said he did not give any direct (or indirect) instruction to avoid being charged for perjury, which is typical of a sleazy lawyer.
But wait… is AG Tommy then implying that what the AGC did was wrong but that DPP Hamdan Hamzah is the one in contempt? It sure seems like he’s throwing his poor subordinate under the bus.
If AG Tommy is to be believed then why should he also not believe Najib?
Let’s relate this back to the SRC trial. Najib denies giving any instruction to anybody to transfer the RM42 million to his political donations bank account. Why won’t AG Tommy believe him? In fact there is even evidence showing Najib was not at all involved in any of the fund transfers. Even more compelling evidence surfaced in court that Najib was deliberately kept out of the loop by those involved in the transfers.
On the other hand, in the case of the Adib inquest, the fact is that the filing of the affidavit is consistent with AG Tommy’s position that Adib was not beaten. Tommy himself said that Syazlin Mansor’s position contradicted that of the AGC’s position.
“Thirdly, my officers, who are performing their additional role as counsel assisting the coroner, have informed me that Pn Syazlin takes an active part in the inquest, often contradicting the positions our DPP’s have taken, thus causing embarrassment in her capacity as the ministry’s lawyer” — AG Tommy Thomas
Prior to the application by Adib’s father on Tommy’s interference, Tommy never objected to the filing of the affidavit that Adib was not beaten up, therefore, his pathetic line of defence is an afterthought. Instead he ordered that Syazlin be removed due to contradicting the AGC’s position.
However, let’s assume that Tommy is telling the truth. Then we can only conclude that he is an incompetent and useless AG.
Tommy knew very well that is was a very high profile case. How could he not have directed his team on what to do and what not to do? How could he not even have a discussion with his team? How could he not even — so he claims — have met DPP Hamdan? Didn’t he have meetings to monitor progress? Wasn’t he interested to know what really happened to Adib?
If it is true that Tommy did not know that his DPP would be filing the affidavit, this is then poor management and leadership by AG Tommy. And yet he expects Najib to be involved in all the daily affairs of SRC and 1MDB? That’s also being hypocritical.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
(i) Tommy is a liar and a hypocrite to prevent Najib from explaining on Facebook omissions and misleading reports by the media;
(ii) The court should not entertain Tommy’s application unless he shows that Najib’s Facebooks postings contain lies or slanderous statements.
(i) The filing of the affidavit should not be the main issue to establish Tommy’s guilt. The real issue is that AG Tommy took a position that Adib was not beaten.
(ii) The filing of the affidavit (that Adib was not beaten) by AG Tommy’s DPP, Hamdan Hamzah, is consistent with AG Tommy’s position that Adib was not beaten.
(iii) Tommy is either a liar or an incompetent AG for denying responsibility.
(iV) AG Tommy Thomas should be held responsible and in contempt.
– AA –