untuk carian lebih pantas sila taip katakunci dalam kotak dibawah dan klik butang 'search'

Saturday, May 8, 2010



Lapuran oleh http://malaysianstory.wordpress.com/ -

Dihadapan Yang Arif Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah [Rabu]

Permohonan pemohon (AI) untuk YA menarik diri dari mendengar perbicaraan kes ini.


Pemohon: Karpal Singh(KS), CV Prabakaran (CV), Paracumaraswamy (PC), Sankara Nair (SN), Marissa, RJ,

Responden: Dato’ Mohd Yusof (MY), Hanafiah Zakaria (HZ), Dato’ Nordin Hassan(NH), Noorin Badaruddin (NB), Farah Azlina Latif (FA), Mira Mirna bt Musa dan Naidatul Atirah bt Azman (Wong Chiang Kiat (CK), tidak hadir)

WB: Rajpal Singh, Andy Yong. Leong, Abdul Syukor Tokachil (Majlis Peguam)

Zamri Idrus (M. Saiful Bukhari)

Mark Trowell [Teoh Lib Peng - penterjemah]

[AI hadir]

[09:35 am]

JB: Bicara permohonan AI vs PR

MY: Sebelum memulakan ada En Teoh Lib Peng bersama [bagi pihak Mark Trowell].

KS: Tiada bantahan.

The application is for YA to recuse yourself from further hearing this case. Notis Usul and affidavit had been replied and followed by our affidavit, there is NOP received this morning. I don’t want to waste time for this proceeding. What is important is in 1924 said by CJ Hewart in R v Sussex Justices [quoted] “It is not merely of some important, but of fundamental importance that justice is not only to be done, but what should be manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”

David Anthony case refer .

Whether our court has live up to this expectation? This court must live up to this expectation. The judges did not live up to what expected in them. In this application what is fundamental is, YA is guilty for not saying what is not true that can be described as false and a lie.

Refer tag 8, Vijayalakhmi Devi v Mahadevi Nadchatiram case refer, the federal court at p. 378 [quoted] “A question of bias or impartiality is a question of facts and should not be disturbed at this level of appeal.”

There is a role of an advocate. YA is not fit to sit on that chair.

International Convention regarding impartiality – Tag 10 @ para 52 [read]

The perception of impartiality is measured by a standard of reasonable observer.

Refer tag 9 para 110 “The Commentary on The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct” [read] .

In relation to impartiality refer case Metramac Corp. Sdn. Bhd v Fawziah Holding Sdn. Bhd. [tag 4] @ pg 523, para 16, 61 and 62 [read].

The complain – affidavit of AI at para 7 – a picture appearing in Utusan Malaysia dated 5th February 2010, top right corner front page of Utusan Malaysia.

Refer para 6 of AI affidavit, caption and tag “Mohd. Saiful Bukhari menunjukkan katil di bilik tidur di mana beliau diliwat kepada Hakim ZMD …”

Para 8 of AI affidavit – that YA said “nothing wrong with that caption on the basis it was evidence given in open court, therefore there is no need for caution.”

YA pronouncement as reported in Malaysiakini, shaded in yellow where YA said the detail were mentioned in open court, and there is no ground for contempt of proceeding. There is ruling made by YA but nothing in the Notes of Proceeding to show it was ever mentioned in open court. This shows YA lied, it is proven, it can be proven and has been proven. YA is not being honest, so YA is bias. The evidence is here, it is a finding of facts, on that ground YA have no alternative but to step down.

On the earlier report in Utusan Malaysia, dated 4th February 2010, para 7 and 8 of AI affidavit referred. This affidavit is a sworn statement by AI, in which MY has replied. MY affidavit did not made any reference to para 7 and para 8, which amounting to MY acceptance to what I’ve submitted just now.

Our earlier complaint is what in Utusan Malaysia, which is owned by UMNO and the President of UMNO is Najib Tun Razak, which at some point in times, we would labour in court his role in this matter.

At para 4, at 4th Feb 2010 in Utusan Malaysia “tidak rela diliwat lagi” bold, front page, with the picture of Saiful and AI. At page 3 of Utusan Malaysia “berhenti kerana tidak mahu diliwat lagi”. Clearly this is contemptuous. And what is YA reaction to that? YA dismissing our application for Utusan be cited for contempt, summary dismissal of our application and said it is not contempt on the face of the court. It does not made any different inside or outside court. Even if it is not inside the court, Utusan is subjected to show cause. YA said that the report does not have intention to be mislead. How could YA come to this conclusion there is no intention, intention is from Utusan and not from this court. Again, this does not show impartiality. YA should issue show cause to Utusan Malaysia or to representative of Utusan Malaysia, but YA decided not to do so. YA is guilty of not telling the truth, which by itself is more than sufficient to come for a conclusion that YA must and have to step down. YA is not fit to sit on that chair and to proceed with the trial.

I pray for YA to step down. So many cases, not as serious as this one, choose to step down. Eg. J KC Vohrah, step down on his own even without application made.

This country must redeem itself to the International community; the country is alright but wrong government. YA must redeem yourself.

A judge cannot lie or and cannot say what is not true. That is all.

MY: I will start with there is a presumption of impartiality which is recognise in England and in Malaysia.

Refer to Che Minah case, [tag 7] at p 207 held 3 and 5 “impartiality of the judge- there is strong presumption of impartiality of the judge must be upheld.”

Bias is not proven unless the judge has a proprietary and pecuniary interest. The case on point is [tag 2], Hock Hua Bank held 6 [read] “real likelihood of bias can be shown.”

Of course this is no longer the test, the test now as in the R v Gough [tag 1] refer to by other case “Must be real danger of bias, that the court would not be fair to the parties.”

Refer to Tag 1 at pg. 647.

Refer to page 670, para E “I prefer to state the test in terms … he might unfairly regard with favour or disfavour in considering the issue before the court.’

What is the issue before this court, what is reported or an offence under s.377B?

Refer to the case of Tag 3, Locabail held 5 [read].

In our case, whatever is reported in newspaper is extraneous.

In Malaysia, we refer Tag 5, Alor Janggus, held 3, page 78 [read]

Refer tag 2 Hock Hua Bank, other than what Locabail and Alor Janggus said, we take YA to page 228, para G [read].

They’re talking about the case not about minor things as reported by Utusan or any other newspaper.

Refer to Tag 3 Locabail again at para 22 [read]

The law say there is first there is a presumption of impartiality, second, bias can only happen when it involve pecuniary and prioperty interest, law does not assumed bias. Because, third test – real danger of bias. Forth, the real danger of bias when a well informed public would be able to see that the judge will not be able to decide based on evidence and will decide on extraneous matter. This complains against Utusan Malaysia is not an issue to be decided by this court in adjudicating a charge preferred by the State against AI.

The word “lagi’ not uttered by SP1, arose from occasion that which I disputed. YA respond to that this, that it was not committed in the face of the court. It is not an out-right dismissal. Order 52 Rules of the High Court referred, give you the right to filed an application for Utusan Malaysia to be cited for contempt, but with a leave from the court.

It is wrong to give impression to the public that YA dismissed KS motion just like that. KS conveniently forget about serious allegation towards Utusan Malaysia. This is serious.

Refer to AI affidavit filed this morning.

Para 8 of AI earlier affidavit [read] which at that point of time, the NOP was not yet received from the court. This is a serious allegation. How could they said something like in para 8 without NOP?

Refer to AI reply affidavit, NOP pg. 10 “sebab sebenar saya tak rela lagi’ and that is not the only time the word “lagi” appeared. In facts at pg.22 to my question “Apa respon kamu?” Saiful replied “…saya tidak sanggup melakukannya lagi.”

KS forgot all allegation that Utusan Malaysia did not report correctly. I replied in my affidavit “I thought I heard he uttered it,”. Now it shows it was uttered.

The basis of KS complaint has been destroyed.

Coming to the second part of the complaint, the photograph, I did passed this remarks, maybe to myself, I do not know if anybody have heard it. It was not in my affidavit. This is what happen when we want to keep information away from people. But KS insisted on. All they have is a photograph. When we talk about affidavit, KS said all must have the right to listen. The caption is ambiguous. I did not reply, as I was reading this, I don’t see any problem. The caption refer to a bed on which the offence took place. Utusan Malaysia did not say this “Katil di atas mana kesalahan itu dilakukan”. The word tempat refer to katil or bilik? If it was the room, then it is correct, room and bed was said in the open court. So, YA is correct.

Read Notes of Proceeding at page 22 “Saya ulang jawapan yang sama dengan beliau. Beliau arahkan saya ke bilik tidur utama… waktu itu kamu keluar dari bilik air, nampak dia berada? AI berada di hujung penjuru katil.’ It was mentioned in the open court. If what I say is true, then nobody can dispute that, that he was taken to the master bedroom.

To said YA lied is wrong word. To used strong language to a judge, it is wrong, there must be a certain etiquette which must be followed. To quoted Malik Ishak J, this is nearing contempt.

I’m not asking this court to cite for contempt, we can made our point without insulting. This phrase “mischievous”. That is what the law of contempt says.

I used the word ‘malicious”. The reporter was here, he could have heard it wrongly, but there is no malice.

Before I end my submission, I would like to read two passages from two judgment and I undertake to supply the copy later before end of the day.

R v Thomson Newspaper [1968] 1 All ER 268 [read] Held (i)(a) and (b).

The judge is trained to confined themself to the evidence not the newspaper report.

AG v Times [1973] 3 All ER 54, page 71 at para G [read]

At pg. 72, para E and G [read]

A fair and unbias court will decide based on evidence. It is too early to said YA is bias.

That report must have a effect that it will prejudice YA before the evidence is adjudicated. It is just a report.

It is contemptuous if the witness will alter his evidence or refuse to give evidence. I heard there is a report that life of Saiful is in danger. That is contemptuous.

To conclude, I would submit that there is nothing in regard to the matter complaint of and YA act to show or would make a well informed member of the public feel that YA would not be fair and decide on other than the evidence before this court.

The UM report is something ‘remeh’ and extranuos. KS should be concern about the trial and the evidence, YA had ruled against prosecution for the FIR, also on section 51A, we did not say YA is bias.

In case tag 2, Hock Hua Bank Ian Chin J, recused himself because he thought he would be bias, the Court of Appeal directed him to proceed. Refer to held 4 at page 222 [read].

Throughout this proceeding whatever YA decides that adverse to the defence or prosecution, YA will be criticised, but to recuse yourself on the ground you do not want be criticised, YA should not readily recuse. Unless there are circumstances or situation before YA that YA has acted without any objectivity, YA should continue hearing this case and to quoted presumption of impartiality, and to decide only based by facts proved by evidence established by principles of law. We pray for this application to be dismissed.

KS: The ultimate of this trial, is application of recusal. MY refer to Che Minah case, it is a Court of Appeal decision, he should concentrate on the Federal Court decision. The burden is on us, refer to para 61, applying the test of real danger of bias [read], to rebut it required cogent evidence. By applying the test report of the Utusan Malaysia, MY said that our application is frivolous.

The caption, MY think that refer to the room not the bed. [Read again - caption] SP1 did not give evidence that he pointed to the bed. If it was a room why should he be pointing at the bed? It was clear caption but MY said there is doubt whether it was the bed or the room. Ruling made by YA is in Malaysiakini, “mention in open court’ it was nothing in open court.

YA ought to recuse – important of impartiality.

Refer to Judges Code of Conduct [July 2009] [read].

It is something necessary, I urged YA to reconsider to recuse from hearing this case.

MY: I would like to invite YA in considering this issue the authority Metramac at Holding No. 1, it is a very good guide.

YA: Can I see both party in chamber?

Stand down.

[11:15 am]

[11:25 am]

Pihak-pihak seperti terdahulu.

YA: Saya perlukan masa untuk meneliti hujahan-hujahan dan kes-kes yang dikemukakan.

Keputusan pada 18 Februari 2010 (Khamis)

[11:27 am]


Rabu Februari 10, 2010-
Hakim Tetap 18 Februari Keputusan Sama Ada Tarik Diri Dengar Kes Anwar

KUALA LUMPUR: Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah menetapkan 18 Februari depan untuk memutuskan sama ada beliau akan menarik diri daripada terus mendengar kes liwat membabitkan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Mohamad Zabidin berkata beliau memerlukan masa untuk meneliti hujah pihak pendakwaan dan pembelaan serta nas undang-undang yang dikemukakan oleh kedua-dua pihak kepada permohonan Anwar yang meminta beliau menarik diri daripada mendengar kes itu atas alasan hakim dianggap berat sebelah.

Beliau menetapkan tarikh tersebut setelah mendengar hujah peguam Anwar, Karpal Singh dan hujah jawapan oleh Peguam Cara Negara II Datuk Mohamed Yusof Zainal Abiden.

Pihak pembelaan yang seharusnya membuat pemeriksaan balas terhadap saksi pertama pihak pendakwaan, iaitu pengadu, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, 25, pada Isnin lalu telah menangguhkan dua kali prosiding tersebut untuk membolehkan Anwar memfailkan afidavit untuk menyokong permohonannya serta pihak pendakwaan memfailkan afidavit jawapan.

Pihak pembelaan membuat permohonan supaya Hakim Mohamad Zabidin menarik diri berdasarkan keputusan hakim berkenaan berhubung dua artikel yang diterbitkan Utusan Malaysia yang disifatkannya sebagai mempunyai elemen berat sebelah.

Anwar, 63, Penasihat Parti Keadilan Rakyat dan Anggota Parlimen Permatang Pauh, didakwa meliwat Mohd Saiful, di Unit 11-5-1 Kondominium Desa Damansara, Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara, antara 3.01 petang dan 4.30 petang pada 26 Jun 2008.

Dia didakwa mengikut Seksyen 377B Kanun Keseksaan dan boleh dihukum penjara sehingga 20 tahun dan disebat jika disabit kesalahan. - BERNAMA


Pendengaran Permohonan Semakan Anwar Ditetapkan 25 Februari

PUTRAJAYA: Permohonan Ketua Pembangkang Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim untuk menyemak keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan yang menolak permohonannya untuk dibekalkan beberapa dokumen penting termasuk sampel spesimen DNA Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan sebelum perbicaraan, ditetapkan untuk didengar pada 25 Februari.

Anwar memfailkan permohonan bagi semakan itu mengikut Peraturan 137, Peraturan-peraturan Mahkamah Persekutuan selepas rayuan terakhirnya pada 29 Januari ditolak.

Seorang daripada peguam yang mewakili Anwar, S.N.Nair berkata beliau dimaklumkan mengenai tarikh itu oleh pejabat pendaftar Mahkamah Pesekutuan melalui faksimili pada kira-kira 2.50 petang. Beliau berkata pendengaran itu ditetapkan pada 9.30 pagi pada hari berkenaan.

"Amat dikesalkan kerana tarikh yang begitu lambat diberikan bagi keputusan penting seperti itu kerana menjelang tarikh itu Mahkamah Tinggi Jenayah mungkin telah menangguhkan perbicaraan kes liwat itu. Mahkamah Tinggi menetapkan 25 Januari hingga 25 Februari bagi perbicaraan."

Antara dokumen penting yang dipohon Anwar bagi membolehkan beliau membuat pembelaan dalam perbicaraan kes liwat itu ialah kenyataan yang dirakamkan daripada mangsa Mohd Saiful, nota pemeriksaan Dr Osman Abdul Hamid dari Hospital Pusrawi, kenyataan pemilik kondominium Hassanuddin Abdul Hamid, dan kenyataan tiga doktor dari Hospital Kuala Lumpur, nota ahli kimia dan laporan perubatan dan rakaman CCTV di kondominium pada waktu kejadian.

Pada 29 Januari, panel tiga hakim diketuai Hakim Besar Malaya Tan Sri Arifin Zakaria memutuskan bahawa pada peringkat praperbicaraan, Anwar hanya boleh akses kepada dokumen dan bahan berkaitan pertuduhan itu, bagi membolehkannya untuk memahami pertuduhan dan membuat persediaan bagi pembelaannya.

Anwar, 63, dituduh meliwat bekas pembantunya Mohd Saiful, 24, di sebuah kondominium di Bukit Damansara, Kuala Lumpur pada 26 Jun, 2008.

Pada 3 Februari, pasukan peguam yang mewakili Anwar mengadakan perjumpaan dengan Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan Tan Sri Alauddin Mohd Sheriff memohon supaya semakan itu didengar dengan kadar segera tetapi mahkamah tidak memberikan sebarang tarikh.

Perbicaraan kemudiannya disambung pada sebelah petang 3 Feb dengan Mohd Saiful memberikan keterangan. Bagaimanapun, perbicaraan itu telah ditangguhkan sementara menunggu keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi yang ditetapkan pada 18 Feb berhubung permohonan Anwar bagi hakim menarik diri daripada mengendalikan perbicaraan kes liwatnya. - BERNAMA


Rabu Februari 10, 2010 MYT 6:28:27 PM
Karpal Singh Ditegur Kata Hakim Bohong

KUALA LUMPUR: Peguam Karpal Singh yang mengetuai pasukan pembelaan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim dalam kes liwat membabitkan ketua pembangkang itu, Rabu ditegur kerana menggunakan perkataan kasar terhadap Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah yang mengadili kes itu.

Peguam Cara Negara II, Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden, yang mengetuai pihak pendakwaan dalam kes itu berkata, Karpal bebas mengemukakan hujah tanpa perlu menghina hakim.

"Untuk mengatakan Yang Arif berbohong adalah terlalu kasar. Walaupun kita boleh berhujah sebaik manapun untuk anak guam kita, tetapi menggunakan perkataan kasar adalah tidak wajar.

"Kita boleh berbuat demikian dengan sopan dan beretika," katanya ketika berhujah semasa mahkamah mendengar permohonan pihak pembelaan supaya Hakim Mohamad Zabidin menarik diri daripada kes itu kononnya kerana beliau berat sebelah.

Sebelum itu, Karpal berkata bahawa oleh kerana Hakim Mohamad Zabidin tidak berterus terang kerana tidak merujuk Utusan Malaysia bagi kesalahan menghina mahkamah berhubung laporan yang dianggap palsu, pihak pembelaan melihat itu sebagai "satu pembohongan oleh Yang Arif".

Anwar, 63, yang juga penasihat Parti Keadilan Rakyat dan Anggota Parlimen Permatang Pauh, menghadapi tuduhan meliwat bekas pembantu peribadinya Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, 25, di Unit 11-5-1 Kondominium Desa Damansara, Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara di sini antara 3.01 petang dan 4.30 petang pada 26 Jun 2008.

Pertuduhan adalah mengikut seksyen 377B Kanun Keseksaaan yang membawa hukuman penjara sehingga 20 tahun dan sebatan jika disabit kesalahan. Perbicaraan kes itu masuk hari keenam hari ini tetapi ditangguhkan bagi mendengar permohonan oleh pihak pembelaan itu.

Mohd Saiful, saksi pertama, sedang disoal dalam pemeriksaan balas.

Pada prosiding Rabu, Mohd Yusof berkata Hakim Mohamad Zabidin tidak perlu menarik diri kecuali jika ada perkara atau sebab semasa perbicaraan bahawa hakim itu bertindak berat sebelah.

Bagaimanapun, kata beliau, andaian wujudnya sikap berat sebelah perlulah dibuat dengan penuh kejujuran dan berlandaskan kemuliaan badan kehakiman.

Mohd Yusof berkata sikap berat sebelah tidak boleh dibuktikan kewujudannya, melainkan hakim mempunyai kepentingan diri atau kepentingan daripada segi kewangan.

Katanya mahkamah tidak sepatutnya mengetepikan isu sebenar yang ada di hadapannya, apa yang dilaporkan oleh media atau kesalahan yang dilakukan mengikut Seksyen 377B Kanun Keseksaan.

"Dalam kes ini, apa jua yang dilaporkan oleh akhbar adalah sesuatu yang berasal dari luar," katanya.

Mohd Yusof berkata dalam permohonan bagi melucutkan kelayakan seseorang hakim, mahkamah perlu menimbang beberapa perkara, termasuk ujian tentang wujudnya bahaya sebenar, dan orang ramai yang cukup bermaklumat sedar bahawa hakim berkenaan tidak berlaku adil kepada mereka sekiranya beliau membuat sesuatu keputusan tanpa berdasarkan bukti atau berdasarkan alasan yang tidak berkaitan.

"Aduan tentang Utusan Malaysia bukan suatu isu yang perlu dibuat keputusan oleh mahkamah ini dalam mengadili tuduhan yang dikenakan terhadap Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim," kata beliau.

Mohd Yusof berkata keputusan hakim berkenaan bukan bererti penolakan sepenuhnya dan pihak pembelaan boleh memohon penangguhan sebelum memfailkan usul menuduh Utusan Malaysia menghina mahkamah mengikut Perintah 52 Peraturan-peraturan Mahkamah Tinggi.

Katanya adalah silap dan berlebihan bagi pasukan pembelaan untuk membuat andaian bahawa mahkamah telah menolak usul bagi menuduh akhbar itu menghina mahkamah kerana permohonan mengenainya tidak dibuat secara formal.

Mohd Yusof berkata asas bagi aduan berkenaan (merujuk kepada laporan muka depan bertajuk "Tak rela diliwat lagi" bertarikh 4 Feb), telah terhapus setelah kedua-dua pihak membuat pengesahan tentang perkara itu melalui nota prosiding dan rakaman audio mahkamah.

Mengenai aduan kedua iaitu berkaitan keterangan pada foto, beliau berkata perkataan yang digunakan mempunyai maksud yang kabur.

"Inilah yang berlaku apabila kita ingin sembunyikan maklumat daripada orang ramai. Tetapi, Karpal tetap bertegas mengenainya. Apa yang ada hanyalah sekeping foto...kapsyennya mempunyai maksud yang tidak jelas...saya tak nampak ada sebarang masalah...kapsyen berkenan merujuk kepada sebuah katil tempat kesalahan itu berlaku," kata beliau.

Mohd Yusof berkata maklumat terperinci tentang katil dan bilik tidur utama telah disebut di mahkamah terbuka dan tiada siapa dapat mempertikaikannya kerana ia dicatat dalam nota prosiding.

Katanya dalam membuat laporan tentang kes liwat, pemberita mungkin tersilap dengar, tetapi mereka tidak boleh membuat laporan dengan niat jahat.

"Hari ini, terbukti bahawa mereka melaporkan dengan betul berdasarkan nota prosiding mahkamah dan oleh itu, pihak pendakwaan perlu memohon maaf kepada pemberita Utusan Malaysia yang berkenaan," katanya.

Beliau berkata para hakim dilatih supaya hanya membuat keputusan berdasarkan bukti yang dikemukakan di mahkamah, bukan berdasarkan laporan akhbar.

"Mahkamah yang adil akan hanya membuat keputusan berdasarkan bukti. Masih terlalu awal untuk mengatakan bahawa Yang Arif bersikap berat sebelah," katanya.

Sementara itu, Karpal Singh meminta Mohamad Zabidin menarik diri daripada mengadili kes berkenaan kerana mendakwa hakim itu melakukan kesalahan apabila beliau tidak mengatakan sesuatu yang benar dan ini boleh dianggap sebagai melakukan pemalsuan dan pembohongan.

Karpal Singh berkata dalam keputusannya, hakim berkenaan berkata butiran terperinci telah disebut di mahkamah terbuka, sedangkan ia tidak terdapat dalam nota prosiding dan rakaman audio mahkamah.

"Ini menunjukkan bahawa Yang Arif berbohong. Ini terbukti, boleh dibuktikan dan telahpun dibuktikan. Yang Arif tidak berlaku jujur, jadi Yang Arif berat sebelah. Buktinya ada di sini, ia adalah suatu fakta. Oleh itu, Yang Arif tiada pilihan, selain mengundurkan diri," katanya.

Karpal Singh berkata dalam menolak permohonan pihak pembelaan untuk menuduh Utusan Malaysia menghina mahkamah, hakim berkenaan membuat keputusan bahawa laporan itu tidak menghina mahkamah dan akhbar berkenaan tidak berniat untuk menimbulkan kekeliruan.

"Bagaimanakah Yang Arif boleh membuat kesimpulan bahawa tidak wujud niat seperti itu? Ia datang daripada Utusan, bukan dari mahkamah ini...yang Arif perlu keluarkan surat tunjuk sebab kepada Utusan Malaysia, tapi yang Arif tidak berbuat demikian," kata beliau.

Mohamad Zabidin menetapkan 18 Feb sebagai tarikh untuk menyampaikan keputusannya. - BERNAMA


Digg Google Bookmarks reddit Mixx StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Buzz DesignFloat Delicious BlinkList Furl