KUALA LUMPUR: Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s former special officer, who uploaded closed circuit television (CCTV) footage of proceedings of the ex-premier’s graft trial to his Facebook page on Friday, has defended his action.
In his Facebook status update today, Isham Jalil insists that he is not in contempt of court for publishing the Court Recording and Transcription (CRT) video, as the general order of the court “only prohibits unapproved live telecasts and personal recordings of proceedings”.
“The video which was uploaded (on Friday) was neither a live telecast nor a personal recording. It was recorded by the court using the CRT system and not by any other party.
“Videos recorded by the court for CRT are not the same as personal recordings of proceedings.
“In the United Kingdom, CRT video of a court proceedings can be considered a written transcript that could be obtained by the people from the British National Archives,” said Isham, who added that the situation is similar in other developed countries.
His latest post was accompanied by another CRT video of the trial.
“As for now, there is no written regulation on the CRT video of a court proceeding in Malaysia.
“I find it strange that PH (Pakatan Harapan) lawyers do not understand or are unaware about this,” he added.
Isham described the proceedings involving Najib as a public hearing and not an official secret.
He also maintained that the trial is a high-profile case and a matter of public interest. The people, he said, have the right to follow the proceedings openly or with minimum restriction.
“Why was the inquest involving the late Teoh Beng Hock made live, and not the proceedings involving Najib, since both are considered public hearings and matters of public interest?” he said.
However, Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (Bersatu) legal bureau committee member Saiful Ambar Abdullah Ambar is not convinced, as said that a police report will be lodged against Isham.
Saiful said the uploading of the recording and comments posted by Isham are clearly against the law and that it is a clear act of contempt of court, as the trial is ongoing.