Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe by Email Nine of those who paid a RM1,000 fine are claiming that they did not tell their lawyer, Datuk N. Sivananthan, that they wanted to plead guilty.
According to a spokesman for the nine, Sivananthan had asked them to indicate their plea on pieces of paper to know who wanted to go to trial.
He alleged the lawyer saw judge Akhtar Tahir at the mention of the case and told him that 29 members of the group wanted to plead guilty.
The spokesman said they were not given a chance to decide on their plea in court and were surprised by the turn of events.
Akhtar gave them two months to pay their fines on the understanding that they could extend it to six months.
Sivananthan later told the court that his team of lawyers was withdrawing from representing the 25 others.
Akhtar told the accused that the trial would continue even if new lawyers were not appointed.
The spokesman said those who had pleaded guilty were upset that they had not been given an opportunity to have their case heard.
I’m also confused with the judge’s statement that the “trial will continue even if new lawyers were not appointed.” So, who is going to represent the accused? Wouldn’t it be unfair?
However, Sivananthan was shocked over the allegations. He said they were aware of the whole thing:
Sivananthan, meanwhile, said he was “shocked and disappointed” by the allegation that the 29 had been “coerced” into pleading guilty.
The Kuala Lumpur Bar Criminal Practice Committee chairman said those who pleaded guilty were aware that they could have claimed trial like the 25 others.
“We explained to them that with 54 accused and 200 subpoenas issued by the court, it would take time for the court to proceed. It’s a different matter if there was only one accused.”
Sivananthan said the 29 had voluntarily pleaded guilty and confirmed facts in support of the charge.
“They were also advised about the consequences of pleading guilty,” said the lead counsel among a group of seven lawyers from the KL Bar’s Legal Aid Centre.
He said all those who pleaded guilty had signed letters confirming that they wanted to do so.
Sivananthan said the accused were allowed to ask questions to clear their doubts on their plea.
“We then told them to go back and think about it before coming to court the following day.”
