Kes selesai, anak Nazri macam mana...

PKR menyuarakan perasaan tidak puas hati dengan jawapan Parlimen bahawa kes pengawal peribadi anak kepada Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz telah selesai.

Ini kerana, kata naib presidennya N Surendran, ia gagal menyentuh tentang siasatan terhadap Mohamed Nedim Nazri.

"Apakah hasil daripada siasatan terhadap Mohamed Nedim bawah Seksyen 160 Kanun Keseksaan?

"Walaupun mengakui perkara itu disiasat, Menteri Dalam Negeri Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Huseein sengaja tidak memberitahu sama ada Nedim bersih daripada sebarang kesalahan," kata Surendran.

Dalam kenyataannya hari ini, Surendran (kiri) berkata, tanpa mengira kedudukan sosial, semua orang sama di mata undang-undang dan pengawal keselamatan terlibat juga berhak mendapatkan keadilan.

"Kami menggesa menteri dalam negeri mendedahkan segala-galanya fakta sebenar kes itu dan membuka semula siasatan ke atas kes serangan itu," katanya.

Hishammuddin dalam jawapan bertulisnya semalam berkata, kes memukul penyelia keselamatan pada Mac 2012 sebenarnya dilakukan oleh bekas pengawal peribadi Mohamad Nedim dan disiasat mengikut Seksyen 160, Kanun Keseksaan.

Menjawab soalan Gwo-Burne Loh (PKR-Kelana Jaya), menteri dalam negeri bagaimanapun memberitahu, kes itu telah pun diselesaikan secara baik oleh kedua-dua pihak.

Loh meminta Hishammuddin menyatakan hasil siasatan polis terhadap Mohamad Nedim berhubung kejadian memukul penyelia keselamatan di sebuah kondominium mewah di ibu negara dan kematian pemuda bernama Darren Kang di Sri Hartamas sekitar tahun 2004.

Mengenai kes kematian Darren, Hishammuddin berkata Mohamad Nedim didapati tidak terlibat dengan kes tersebut sebaliknya lima warganegara Thailand telah dituduh di mahkamah dan dijatuhi hukuman lima tahun penjara.- malaysiakini

Anak Nazri Aziz juga dikaitkan dengan satu kes pembunuhan

Case settled, but what about Nazri's son...

PKR is dissatisfied with the home minister’s parliamentary reply that the case of affray involving the bodyguard of minister Mohd Nazri Aziz’s son has been settled, as it does not touch on investigations against Mohamed Nedim Nazri.


“What was the outcome of the investigation against Mohamed Nedim Nazri (right) under section 160 of the Penal Code?

“While admitting that the matter was investigated, Home Minister Hishamuddin Huseein deliberately does not say whether Nedim was cleared of the offence,” said PKR vice-president N Surendran in a statement today.

Yesterday the minister in a written reply told Parliament that the case between Nedim's bodyguard and the security personnel of a condominium had been “settled amicably”.

He was responding to Kelana Jaya MP Loh Gwo Burne’s question to the ministry to reveal the results of police investigations against Nedim on the assault of a security supervisor, and on a separate case involving the death of a youth, Darren Kang, at Uncle Don's restaurant sometime in 2004.

Surendran said regardless of social position, everyone was “equal before the eyes of the law; the security guard in this case has a right to fair and impartial justice”.

“We call upon the home minister to make a full and frank disclosure of the real facts of the case and to re-open the investigation into this assault case,” he said.

Gov't abetting a crime?

Surendran said Hishammuddin in approving the settlement could be construed as abetting an illegal act, and his parliamentary reply has shown “blatant disregard ...  for the due process of law and the integrity of our criminal justice system”.

“It is unprecedented for the home minister to personally approve of such 'amicable settlements', which are against public policy and the rule of law.

 
“If a crime is committed, the perpetrator must be brought to court and duly charged. Under our legal system, crimes cannot be 'amicably settled '.

“Such a ' settlement ' could amount to an offence under Section 214 of the Penal Code.

“By approving of the 'settlement', Hishammuddin may have abetted and connived in an illegal act,” he said.

The PKR veep and human rights lawyer asked if the case has been “compromised” because it involves the son of a senior Umno minister.

Demanding the terms of the “illegal settlement” and whether the police, Nazri or Hishammuddin were involved in the process, Surendran said:“The public is entitled to know if the course of justice was perverted in this case.”

Today DAP parliamentarian Gobind Singh Deo (right) also made a similar call for the attorney-general to fully disclose the details of the settlement as the people’s security was a matter of public interest.

“This is not just a private matter between the guards and the assailant. It involves the residents as well.

“It impacts upon all the residents in the area as it is their security detail which has been compromised. It is a matter of public concern,” said Gobind in a statement.- malaysiakini

AG must explain settling case against Nedim...

The attorney-general should explain what settlement was reached in the case involving a bodyguard of the son of Mohd Nazri Aziz and how it was important enough so as to have outweighed public interest to justify a non-prosecution.

As MP for Puchong, I have received many complaints from residents over security concerns. This is not restricted to condominiums alone but also gated and guarded communities. 

Even where they engage the services of security guards, they still find people forcing their way in and there are problems. In fact, the security companies have also complained about the failure of the police to act when such incidents do occur. 

So, this is not just a private matter between the guards and the assailant. It involves the residents as well. It impacts upon all the residents in the area as it is their security detail which has been compromised. It is a matter of public concern.

Whilst the government says it is serious about fighting crime, it is cases like these which should see stern action taken. A strong signal should be sent out that the law will not tolerate people who obstruct the peace and assault or threaten those who keep the peace.

So, why did the AG find this a fit and proper case not to prosecute? He must explain the special facts in this case which warranted no action being taken. Would the AG have done the same thing if the police had been assaulted instead? What really is the difference?

The AG is supposed to be protecting, and he must protect the public. His priority must be to bring those liable in such cases to book. And he must push for deterrent sentences so as to ensure people can live in peace, knowing that no group of persons can come into their homes, assault their security guards and get away with it.

This decision seems to fly in the face of the current efforts taken by Parliament to strengthen public confidence and to reduce crime. It most certainly does not inspire confidence.

I call upon the AG to review this decision and to correct it. This he is duty-bound to do and I reiterate, he must do immediately.

If there is evidence to suggest criminal liability, then action should be taken. If there is none, then the AG should say so and explain.- Gobind Singh Deo,Malaysiakini 
 
PKR, DAP question Nazri’s son being let off

cheers.