Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Court of Appeal reserves judgment in Vui Kong’s appeal

After two stays of execution, the 3-judge Court of Appeal has reserved its judgment after hearing the arguments put forth by Vui Kong’s lawyer, M Ravi.

Pro bono to save a life: M. Ravi, Vui Kong's lawyer, with the 3-man team of lawyers from London who assisted him with research & advice and were at the hearing with him. They are Parvais Jabbar, Edward Fitzgerald QC and Saul Lehrfreund

Updates and news reports from The Guardian (UK), TODAY and Straits Times are well compiled in Jacob George's blog: http://jacob69.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/singapores-court-of-appeal-reserves-judgment-in-vui-kongs-appeal-hearing/

We will notify you when M Ravi is notified of the judgment date. Please help by disseminating this e-flyer in the meanwhile:


Antares said...

I'm relieved to learn that Vui Kong has not been executed as a sacrifice to a diabolically twisted system of injustice wherein the REAL culprits never get caught - because they ARE the power structure! I pray that more citizens on both sides of the Causeway will voice their concerns about being party to state-sponsored cold-blooded human sacrifice. Indeed, it's high time every state that wishes to be recognized as "civilized" abolishes the death penalty, especially in regard to crimes that don't incur bloodshed and violence.

Robox said...

I have to say that Ravi did an incredibly good job at this hearing; I read a comment by Ms Teo Soh Lung that she had heard that the judges were very visibly impressed by his submissions to their court.

I really hope that Vui Kong's life can be saved.

But, moving on to another related matter, the argument that Ravi used in court was based on Article 12 of the Constitution; I believe that all the cases still pending in the courts against the SDP can use the same arguments as Ravi did in this case.

They are actually not at all different from what I had previously written on the SDP's website on procedural law.

The basic argument - and this is more for the benifit of your readers - is that:

There is a hierachy in the structure of law and it follows as such:

1. the Constitution - laws, the fundamental rights of which are inviolable considering that they need to meet the UN's mandate and the rest of which are required to be that are passed with the consent of a two-third majority in Parliament

2. the Statutes - laws that are enacted by 50% plus one one vote in Parliament

3. what I referred to as "Procedural Law" in the SDP website and which I acknowledged might go by a different term in Singapore. (Only Singapore trained lawyers can educate us in this matter.) Procedural law is not at all different from the "processes" that Ravi cited in court from the Indian Constitution, and that are required in the practise of government so as to outcome in "equality under the law" as guaranteed under the Constitution.

It is this disregard of "procedural law" or "processes that government is legally obliged to fulfil to produce the outcome of equality under the law" that has characterized the incompetent, unproductive, and corrupt judiciary thus far in their conduct of all the politically motivated cases agaisnt the SDP.

The "procedure" or "process" that I am specifically referring to are the procedures and the processes within the SPF that refuse to produce the result of equality under the law just because it is the SDP that is applying for a police permit: a longwinded explanation for "discrimination" which is against the law, but one that is necessary in court.

Look out for any legal precedent that Vui Kong's case might make and use it.

And let's all keep hoping and working for the best for Vui Kong.