Karpal denies lodging complaint with CJ...
It is transparent from the association exchanged which we had not done the censure to the arch probity (CJ) for an investigation.
I am surprised which the arch probity has stated which after an investigation, there is no basement to my censure which has been discharged pursuant to section 13(1) of the Judges Code of Ethics, 2009, pronounced the comparison lawyer in the statement this afternoon.
Karpal additionally questioned the CJ for citing the Code of Ethics, 2009 as the purported action of piracy took place in 2000 prior to the code, saying the formula is not retrospective in operation.
The DAP national chairperson as well as Bukit Gelugor MP explained which his communications with the CJs Office had merely been to reply to the latters enquiry upon his association with the erring decider upon the issue.
He pronounced he primarily sent letters dated August twenty-two as well as Sept 29 to the judge, Abdul Malik Ishak, expressing his intention to pierce opposite him in Parliament, which were after forwarded to the CJ as well as the president of the Court of Appeal because he felt the make the difference was of serious concern to the judiciary.
This stirred the CJs office to write to Karpal upon Oct thirteen asking for specific information about the issue, including box references as well as contents of the allegedly plagiarised judgement.
The lawyer replied with the reasons for the parliamentary fit as well as! the dup licate of the motion, but the fit after lapsed.
By minute dated Dec 7 to the CJ, we indicated which the fit under Article 127 in Parliament had over upon Dec 1, as well as thus could not be discussed, withdrawal me no pick but to seek alternative measures to resolve the matter, pronounced Karpal.
Karpal pronounced his ultimate pierce was to write an open minute upon Dec twenty-seven severe Abdul Malik to possibly renounce or record the defamation fit opposite him in 7 days, failure being taken as an acknowledgment of guilt.
Abdul Malik has the choice to sue me for defamation before the final we have since him in my open minute failing upon Jan 3. The ball is in his court. Let us see how he deals with it.
Earlier currently the CJ's Office had announced which they had found "no merit" to Karpal's purported censure about the judge.Karpal had progressing called upon the pronounced decider to renounce over the piracy allegations.
According to the lawyer, the erring decider had, plagiarised the former Singapore decider GP Selvams visualisation as his own, ironically over the box of copyright.Karpal combined which the law minister during the time, Rais Yatim, had publicly admitted which he knew about the piracy allegations in 2000.
It is surprising which the minister upon his own acknowledgment did not take any step to approach the correct review despite carrying had 4 years to do so! That appears to be the quality of our ministers! he said.
Peguam Karpal Singh menafikan telah membuat se! barang a duan kepada Pejabat Ketua Hakim Negara supaya menyiasat isu plagiarisme terhadap seorang hakim, serta menyatakan rasa terkejutnya dengan keputusan siasatan bahawa aduan tersebut tidak mempunyai merit.
"Adalah jelas daripada surat-menyurat bahawa saya tidak membuat aduan kepada Ketua Hakim Negara (CJ) supaya dijalankan siasatan," katanya dalam satu kenyataan hari ini.
Karpal berkata, beliau terkejut bahawa Ketua Hakim Negara menyatakan berdasarkan siasatan yang dijalankan menurut Seksyen thirteen (1) Kod Etika Hakim 2009, dakwaan plagiarisme seperti yang dibangkitkan oleh peguam itu tidak mempunyai consequence dan aduan tersebut ditolak.
Dalam satu kenyataan petang ini, Karpal juga mempersoalkan Ketua Hakim Negara merujuk kepada Kod Etika Hakim 2009 kerana perbuatan plagiarisme itu berlaku pada tahun 2000, sebelum kod itu diwujudkan, sambil berkata "kod itu tidak retrospektif".
Karpal yang juga pengerusi kebangsaan DAP dan ahli parlimen Bukit Gelugor menjelaskan bahawa komunikasi dengan Pejabat CJ hanyalah semata-mata respon kepada pertanyaan pejabat berkenaan berhubung suratnya kepada hakim berkenaan, berhubung isu tersebut.
Sebelum itu, pegawai khas 1 kepada Ketua Hakim Negara, Che Wan Zaidi Che Wan Ibrahim, dalam satu kenyataaan hari ini, berkata siasatan yang dijalankan oleh Ketua Hakim Negara mendapati dakwaan Karpal itu tidak mempunyai consequence dan aduan tersebut ditolak.
Sebelum ini, Karpal menggesa Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan Datuk Hakim Abdul Malik Ishak supaya meletakkan jawatannya berikutan dakwaan plagiarisme.
Pada 4 Oktober lalu, Karpal mengemukakan usul mengikut Perintah-Perintah Tetap twenty-seven yang dibaca bersama dengan 36 (8) dan Perkara 127 perlembagaan persekutuan, yang mahu dibentangkannya di Dewan Rakyat.
Menurut Karpal beliau sendiri telah menulis kepada hakim kanan itu pada twenty-two Ogos lalu dan memberi ! beliau m asa selama tujuh hari untuk menjawab dakwaan berkenaan.
Karpal kemudiannya menulis sepucuk lagi surat pada 29 September lalu dan memberitahu hakim itu bahawa sekiranya tiada jawapan diberikan beliau akan mengandaikan ia sebagai pengakuan salah laku.