Riza’s discharge: Could the judge have ordered a trial?

The layman in me is terribly troubled and greatly upset at the way the money-laundering cases – five in all – have turned out to be. I’m thoroughly confused!

I just can’t get over the fact that a criminal could go free and allowed to keep part of the loot! To add salt to the wound, his lawyer even allegedly proclaimed that Riza Aziz (above) was innocent.

For heaven’s sake, this is a criminal case. A crime is a crime.

But we are told by the lead prosecutor Gopal Sri Ram that if Riza fulfils the terms of the plea bargain “then appropriate steps will be taken to ensure that the accused obtains a full acquittal”.

What is full acquittal?

It means a defendant is not guilty of a crime as charged, Once the acquittal is reached, the defendant may not be prosecuted again for the same criminal act or transaction.

"Not guilty" and "acquittal" are synonymous.

It other words, it means that Riza did not commit any crime and, therefore, he is not guilty.

Then why was he charged in the first place? Does it mean he was wrongly charged? But then, he was charged on five counts. How can the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) charge a person without thoroughly investigating the case? Has the AG erred in charging him?

Following in the footsteps of Riza’s settlement, what if Jho Low (above) now comes forward and volunteers to surrender part of his loot? Will he be acquitted? We don’t have to waste time trying to trace him or seek Interpol’s assistance to arrest him. Can he go free just like Riza? That might tempt him to come out of his hiding!

Wait a minute. But there is one snag in Jho Low’s case. His father wasn’t the prime minister of Malaysia!

Or take another criminal case. Supposing a criminal who abducted a girl comes forward and seeks a plea bargain to set the girl free, can he go free? Will he be similarly acquitted? Shouldn’t the law be applied to all, fairly and squarely?

The layman’s understanding is this. Before the case goes to court, the attorney-general is absolutely in charge. He is the one who decides whether there is a case to be charged in court. Having been fully satisfied, and convinced that there is a case to be answered, he refers the case to the court for a trial.

But once the case is with the court, the layman’s understanding is that the court is in control. The court can decide whether there are sufficient grounds for a case to be withdrawn. If the case is serious enough to go for a trial, the judge can refuse the withdrawal and order the case to go for trial.

Likewise, couldn’t the judge in Riza’s case have ordered Riza to stand for a trial? Clearly, there were grounds for the charges and there was sufficient evidence accumulated by the AGC for the charges.

Those of us who are dissatisfied with the way Riza was allowed to go free, those of us who are outraged by what has happened, we must stand up and make known our utter disappointment and frustration.

Let’s remember this: “There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.”

---

P RAMAKRISHNAN is a former president of Aliran, a reform movement dedicated to justice, freedom and solidarity. - Mkini

✍ Credit given to the original owner of this post : ☕ Malaysians Must Know the TRUTH

🌐 Hit This Link To Find Out More On Their Articles...🏄🏻‍♀️ Enjoy Surfing!