Dr Hj Ismail Pg Hj Damit

Bandar Seri Begawan - It's going, going and now it's gone as well! That is the gist of the shocking High Court decision yesterday to let off two bailers of their $200,000 obligations in Brunei's biggest corruption case in which a top former minister stands charged.

First, the multimillion dollar bribe case against the sacked Development Minister, Pengiran Dr Haji Ismail bin Haji Damit and his alleged accomplice, contractor Wong Tim Kai charged in May 2004, has been long on going.

Then in the course of the extended trial the judge quit the case, and as the proceedings went before a new judge five years later in February this year, Wong, the contractor, the 2nd defendant went missing.

A search has been going on ever since and the High Court has issued a warrant for his arrest.

But all was not lost. The prosecution then directed their attention to the two leading towns people who had stood a $200,000 bail bond guarantee for their old friend, the fugitive contractor Wong, who stood in company with the minister charged with corruption.

The two who stood as sureties for the fleeing Wong were the town's leading watch dealer, Chong Ain Hong and Dato Haji Danial bin Haji Hanifian, a retired civil servant.

Now with Wong having disappeared and leaving his two friends to face the music, the question before the High Court Judge, Judicial Commissioner Gareth John Lugar-Mawson was whether the two good Samaritans should be made to fork out the $200,000 bond.

But because of a High Court ruling yesterday, the $200,000 bond money is also gone, thanks to a procedural error.

Mr Roy Prabhakaran of Cheok Sankaran and Halim for Chong and Dato Haji Danial argued that his clients were under no obligation to pay because the case was transferred from the Magistrate's Court and the High Court had no power to enforce it.

Yesterday, the High Court agreed with Mr Prabhakaran adding that a fresh bond should have been taken when the defendants appeared before the High Court.

The terms of the bond Wong, and his sureties, entered into on May 27, 2004 are limited to guaranteeing his appearance before a Magistrate's Court, the High Court ruled.

"Nothing is said in the bond about his appearance in the High Court in the event that the case is transferred there for trial," the court said.

It was clear from the wording of the bond that Wong's obligations under the bond, and those of his sureties, were limited to his obligations in respect of the Magistrate's Court proceedings

"The terms of the bond taken on May 27, 2004 could have been drafted to include his obligation to appear before the High Court and that of his sureties' to ensure that he did. That could also have been done when the case was transferred to the High Court on October 23, 2004," the judge remarked.

Indeed, he added, it could have been done at any of Wong's appearances before the Magistrate's Court between May and October 2004.

A fresh bond should have been taken before the former Chief Justice when the defendants appeared before him on October 23, 2004. The order made, for continuation on 'the same terms', is, with respect, nonsense.

The 'same terms' required the 2nd defendant's attendance before a Magistrate's Court, not the High Court, the High Court said.

A fresh bond should have been taken when the Chief Justice made the order for a new trial on February 26, 2009. "All these things could and should have been done, for some reason they were not," the High Court Judge remarked.

Also, it was noted that the two sureties were kept in the dark as to what was going on. So far as Wong was concerned, it was too late now to do anything about it.

"I am drawn to the conclusion that Mr Prabhakaran's argument is comet. That as according to the terms of the bond, the 2nd defendant and his sureties' obligations ended when this case was transferred from the Magistrate's Court to the High Court, there has been no breach of its terms by the 2nd defendant's non-appearance in this trial.

"I therefore have no power to forfeit the bond and require the 2nd defendant and his sureties to make payment under its terms," the court ruled.

DPP Aldila Salleh appeared for Public Prosecutor. -- Reported by Brudirect.Com

Comments (1)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Pollen , November 10, 2009

frankly, is anyone even surprised by this? sometimes i wonder if the court case is all just for show.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +6

Write comment

Name

Email

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment