04-02-2023, 03:41 AM
On 7 July last year, 48-year-old Norasharee bin Gous was executed in Changi Prison after being accused by a rival gang member, Mohamad Yazid bin Md Yusof of instructing him to traffic drugs in 2013.
Norasharee, in his appeal, had argued against the use of Yazid's testimony as sole evidence to convict him, but the Court of Appeal referred to the appeal ruling of Chin Seow Noi v Public Prosecutor, stating that the co-accused's testimony could be used as evidence to determine a person's guilt under the law and they thus dismissed Norasharee's appeal.
In any case, the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), in consultation with the same AGC which decided that a single testimony was sufficient to prove guilt for the instigation of drug trafficking, recently issued a statement on how it had issued stern warnings to six former senior management of Keppel Offshore & Marine Ltd (KOM) for their involvement in the bribery case in Brazil.
CPIB, in its press release, tried to justify their decision by stating how complex the bribery case in Brazil is, and that there is a possible lack of evidence to secure a conviction.
But we all know from the plea agreement with the US Department of Justice (DoJ) that KOM had already confessed to the offence, paid the fine of US$65 million, and DoJ had one of the KOM executives as its key witness. Not to mention, evidence of the conspiracy to bribe is already detailed clearly in emails seized by DoJ.
So the point here is, if a man can be sentenced to death solely by the testimony of another in Singapore, what is so hard in prosecuting persons who have confessed to a crime themselves?
The Online Citizen
Norasharee, in his appeal, had argued against the use of Yazid's testimony as sole evidence to convict him, but the Court of Appeal referred to the appeal ruling of Chin Seow Noi v Public Prosecutor, stating that the co-accused's testimony could be used as evidence to determine a person's guilt under the law and they thus dismissed Norasharee's appeal.
In any case, the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), in consultation with the same AGC which decided that a single testimony was sufficient to prove guilt for the instigation of drug trafficking, recently issued a statement on how it had issued stern warnings to six former senior management of Keppel Offshore & Marine Ltd (KOM) for their involvement in the bribery case in Brazil.
CPIB, in its press release, tried to justify their decision by stating how complex the bribery case in Brazil is, and that there is a possible lack of evidence to secure a conviction.
But we all know from the plea agreement with the US Department of Justice (DoJ) that KOM had already confessed to the offence, paid the fine of US$65 million, and DoJ had one of the KOM executives as its key witness. Not to mention, evidence of the conspiracy to bribe is already detailed clearly in emails seized by DoJ.
So the point here is, if a man can be sentenced to death solely by the testimony of another in Singapore, what is so hard in prosecuting persons who have confessed to a crime themselves?
The Online Citizen
