Mr. Ang made it clear that Iswaran’s circumstance was referred to the High Court under a different area.
According to Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Singh’s application was submitted under Section 239, which provides that the High Court does order the transfer for three reasons: that a fair and impartial trial may be conducted in any State Court, that some legal issues of strange difficulty are likely to develop, or that it is convenient for the purposes of justice or required by the Criminal Procedure Code or any other law to move the case.
Mr. Ang explained that Singh’s attorneys had written to the trial to request that it use its authority to move the event to the High Court.
The trial responded by saying they were unable to consent to this demand and were unable to concede.
At this point, Singh and his lawyers may have applied for a judicial evaluation of the lawyer’s decision, but rather, they filed the legal movement under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, said Mr Ang.
According to Mr. Ang,” There is nothing to be gained in rules, at least by the applicant relying on and making reference to Iswaran’s situation.”
” Preferably… there are all manner of attempts to send to Iswaran’s situation as if the problem is the case, the facts are identical, there’s the same level of public interest, etc. and we say this is really a backdoor attempt to review the public prosecutor’s discretion,” said Mr Ang.
WHY THE PROSECUTION ASKED TO TRANSFER ISWARAN’S CASE
He claimed that Iswaran’s case had been transferred to the High court because of a statement made in an affidavit by the prosecution.
He said Iswaran faces a slew of charges under Section 165 for , obtaining valuables as a public servant, a section that is” of wide application”.
” It applies to all public servants, from the most junior civil servant to permanent secretaries, to ministers to Supreme Court judges,” said Mr Ang.
According to Mr. Iswaran, the High Court was chosen because of the potential effects that the interpretation of that section might have on how public servants might interact with citizens.
In contrast, these considerations” do not apply at all” to Singh’s case.
” To put it very simply: He took an affirmation before he gave evidence before the COP ( Committee of Privileges ). He was asked questions, he gave answers, and our view, looking at the evidence, is that he had lied while giving his answers to the COP,” said Mr Ang.
He claimed that the judge who hears the case’s case case should decide in the end whether or not Singh had lied beyond a shadow of a doubt.
” It’s a purely factual inquiry. There is no rule or interpretation of any rule of law that could be applied broadly, aside from the phrase “you should not lie when you are under affirmation,” according to Mr. Ang.
COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT THAT THEY ARE POLITICIANS: DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL
He claimed that Singh was requesting that the case be transferred because he was constantly reminding the court of his leadership as leader of the opposition and was comparing himself to Iswaran.
The fact that Mr. Iswaran is a politician and that the applicant is a politician is not considered in our decision as to which court to hear the matter,” said Mr. Ang.
He said Singh’s definition of” public interest “differed from the prosecution’s understanding of what the term means.
The applicant is referring to the general interest that members of the public have in the COP proceedings when the words “public interest” are used, according to Mr. Ang.
He mentions the fact that many views and hits were recorded on social media platforms that broadcast portions of the COP, and even lists the number of YouTube hits as well.
There is a “world of difference” between what is in the public interest and what the general public might be interested in, according to Mr. Ang.
Regarding, Mr. Ang,” The court is completely uninterested in the fact that the general public may be interested in the COP proceedings or what happens to the applicant,”
He cited the City Harvest Church case, which did not merit a transfer to the High Court, as saying that the public is interested in” all types of cases”.
For Singh’s application to succeed, he must show that he is not going to secure justice or get a fair trial if his case remains in the State Courts, said the Deputy Attorney-General.
He claimed that Singh has been altering his positions from the time he presented the facts supporting his application to his written arguments and the arguments his attorney presented orally in court.
The judge will make her ruling on September 9 with a delay.