Innocent until proven guilty: The principle of the law is simple, all accused are guaranteed legal representation by the Federal Constitution. – 123rf.com
THE comment by Perlis Mufti Datuk Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin about it being sinful for a lawyer to defend people who are known to have committed offences, has raised many eyebrows. In fact, that action is hair-raising.
It’s disturbing for many Malaysians, especially for those who perceive an increasing tide of such radical religious interpretations in our country.
Asri went further by saying that the sin of taking money from offenders is worse than income from prostitution.
According to a news report last week, he explained himself to several lawyers on their career path if they chose to be defence counsels to alleged offenders.
Asri’s comments rightly earned a rebuke from Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Parliament and Law) Datuk Seri Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar, who issued a reminder on the principle that a person is “innocent until proven guilty,” adding that lawyers had no power to declare whether a person was guilty or innocent.
The principle of the law is simple: an accused – including a cleric – is guaranteed legal representation by the Constitution.
In February, celebrity preacher Ebit Lew was slapped with 11 charges of sexual harassment at an interior court in Sabah.
The 37-year-old, who was charged under Section 509 of the Penal Code, pleaded not guilty to all charges. If convicted, he could face up to five years in jail or a fine, or both.
Ilmami Ahmad, who appeared for the prosecution, was assisted by deputy public prosecutor Azreen Yas Mohamad Ramli, while Ebit was represented by Zairi Zainal Abidin.
Ebit may have been charged, but he is innocent until proven guilty, and even then, he is eligible to many stages of appeal in the higher court.
Going by Asri’s logic, Ebit would have been denied his right to legal representation, unless Asri meant a consistent criminal. But even then, it doesn’t mean the serial offender is responsible for every crime, unless proven otherwise, of course.
Asri himself has reportedly faced defamation suits, and he surely must have sought the advice of his lawyers. That would surely be the sensible thing to do.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution. That aside, imagine the consequences if no lawyers are provided for defences, according to Asri’s warped logic. There would be no trials and with no trials, conviction would be impossible unless the accused pleads guilty from the outset.
Then, there are the questions of insanity, diminished capacity, duress, mistake, infancy and entrapment, which may be the defence’s arguments, or in the worst case, mitigating factors. However, only trained defence lawyers can handle such cases competently.
Wan Junaidi dismissed Asri’s remarks, saying, if receiving payment and legal fees was sinful, then no Muslims would want to become lawyers. I’m sure there are many Muslim lawyers who would dismiss Asri’s “revelation”.
If I may humbly add, thank God Malaysia has a proper legal system that’s mainly based on the common law legal system. The supreme law of the country and the Federal Constitution set out the legal framework and rights of every citizen.
The country provides for a unique dual justice system – the secular laws for criminal and civil cases and syariah laws for Muslims, particularly on family and religious matters.
Asri’s position on legal fees is hard to fathom. Surely, as professionals, lawyers are expected to be paid for their services unless they do it on a pro bono basis.
To equate legal fees with prostitution is simply uncalled for, no matter how one puts it, especially in a religious argument.
Surely, Asri can’t expect Muslim lawyers to now seek his advice if they wish to take on cases involving clients who may be found guilty later or have a record of offences.
Have we come to a point where clerics like Asri have also become a reference point for legal matters or for lawyers who are unsure or uncomfortable about such cases?
Even in corporate and civil cases, there would be clients deemed powerful with all the resources at their disposal acting against the common man, for example, a bank repossessing a low-cost home of people who can’t service their loans.
Does Asri also equate the lawyer representing the bank to a prostitute, when essentially, his client is doing what is procedurally correct, as mutually agreed, by the bank and borrower in the agreement even if it looks heartless?
Clerics, regardless of their faith, are powerful and influential, but they need to be checked and reminded if they’re wrong, like everyone else, regardless of their position because they are mere mortals, not God.
