(Petaling Jaya, Wednesday): Yesterday, former Kedah Mentri Besar Tan Sri Sanusi Junid took ill and could not turn up at the Sepang magistrate’s court to face two summons charges of causing hurt to two Malaysia Airlines employees at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport at about 12.40 a.m. on May 5, 2000.
Following the production of a medical certificate issued by Charles Gomez Ear Nose and Throat Clinic in Kuala Lumpur that Sanusi was not fit to attend court from August 18 - 25 because of a severe attack of "vertigo with tinnitus" (a condition in the ear which causes pain and a ringing sensation, and can also cause nausea, vomiting, and the patient could lose his balance), magistrate Kamal Bahrin Omar fixed Oct. 3 to re-mention the case.
It is reported that Sanusi is charged with voluntarily causing hurt to Shaiful Abdul Rahman, 25, and Mohd Nazri Ishak, 25 at aerobridge door A2 at the KLIA on May 5.
Sanusi, who is now International Islamic University president, is being charged under Section 323 of the Penal Code which is punishable with a maximum of one year’s jail or a fine of RM2,000 or both.
The issue at hand is not that Sanusi had taken ill and the case postponed (although Malaysians must be wondering why top government leaders like the former Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Rahim Noor, are suddenly very prone to illness when they are charged in court although previously they were very fit and in tip-top condition), but why it has taken such an inordinately long time for Sanusi to be charged in court for such a simple and straightforward case.
The Attorney-General, Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah should explain why he has taken more than three months to prefer charges against former Kedah Mentri Besar, Sanusi Junid in such a simple and straightforward case - which cannot reflect well on the competence and professionalism either of the police or the Attorney-General’s chambers.
More serious is the question as to whether the delay of more than three
months to bring the charges against Sanusi to court is another example
of political interference with the constitutional duties of the Attorney-General
when all prosecutorial duties should be exercised with complete independence,
impartiality and integrity uncorrupted by any extraneous or partisan political
consideration.
(23/8/2000)