Lawyer A Srimurugan said he received a letter from Federal Court registrar Norhafizah Zainal Abidin yesterday informing that the bench chaired by Chief Justice Richard Malanjum would deliver its verdict at 9 am on a death penalty case related to drugs.
“This is a historic moment as the largest assembled bench will deliver their decision after hearing submissions in January,” he said.
Malanjum, who was appointed top judge last July, in his maiden speech had said all constitutional cases would be heard by nine judges while a bench of seven would hear public interest cases.
The first nine member bench heard a civil appeal last August but a ruling has yet to be delivered.
Gopal Sri Ram and Srimurugan are representing Philippine national Alma Nudo Atenza and Thai citizen Orathai Prommatat who were sentenced to death for drug trafficking. The two foreigners had said, in their appeal before the Federal Court, that the prosecution could not rely on an unfair legal provision in the Dangerous Drugs Act (DDA) to take away their lives.
The prosecution had relied on Section 37A on double presumptions in the DDA, which was passed by Parliament in 2004 to secure their convictions.
It all began when the Federal Court in the 1998 case of Muhammed Hassan v Public Prosecutor had held that presumptions could not be used as that would be oppressive and unduly harsh on accused persons.
The government then introduced Section 37A to allow the prosecution to rely on presumptions under Section 37 (d) and 37 (da) of the DDA, thereby overruling the Federal Court judgment.
Sri Ram had said in the appeal of the duo that in enacting Section 37A, Parliament had exercised unauthorised appellate jurisdiction over the Federal Court ruling.
The former retired judge had said introducing Section 37A amounted to Parliament reversing the Federal Court judgement in Muhammed’s case and this ran contrary to the Federal Constitution.
In both cases, the trial courts held that the women had failed to rebut the presumption of possession and knowledge under Section 37(d) and had failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking under Section 37 (da).
Sri Ram said Section 37A also violated Alma and Orathai’s constitutional right to life under Article 5.
Deputy public prosecutor Nik Suhaimi Nik Sulaiman said Section 37A was a valid law passed by Parliament and the section was not against Articles 5 and 8 (equality of law and equal protection of the law).