Today’s verdict from a Kangaroo court reflects Phnom Penh’s subservience to Hanoi

September 23, 2010

TODAY’S VERDICT FROM A KANGAROO COURT
REFLECTS PHNOM PENH’S SUBSERVIENCE TO HANOI

On a purely technical and truly legal ground, the charges levied against me by the Cambodian government are totally baseless.

Swiss independent map expert Régis Caloz, a professor at the prestigious Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne who had been consulted on the issue, wrote on March 23, 2010 a detailed technical report showing that I have not “produced” or “falsified” any map and that the conclusions I have reached on the issue of Cambodian farmers losing their lands because of border encroachment, are correct. Professor Caloz’s report has been acknowledged by the Geneva-based Inter-Parliamentary Union and its Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians, and is available to everybody.

Therefore, the charges against me are of a strictly political nature. Only a Kangaroo court can issue the type of verdict we saw today. Everybody, from independent human rights organizations to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights situation in Cambodia, rightly says that the judiciary in this country is everything but independent, being only a political tool for the authoritarian ruling party to silence any critical voices.

Today’s verdict actually reflects the Vietnamese government’s anger against, and worry about, me because I dared, as a Cambodian member of parliament, defend Cambodian farmers, who are my constituents, against continuous border encroachments by Vietnam.

Following a border incident on October 25, 2009 when I uprooted a fake border post illegally planted on a rice field belonging to a Cambodian farmer in Svay Rieng province, there had been no reaction whatsoever from any Cambodian official or authority. The first public reaction actually came ten days later, on November 4, from Vietnam’s prime minister in person, Mr. Nguyen Tan Dung who officially recommended from Hanoi that the Phnom Penh government punish me.

Today’s verdict is the reflection and the result of that recommendation from a foreign country.

Sam Rainsy
Member of Parliament
(Currently travelling from London to Paris)

Mu Sochua Fine Decision Inconsistent With Sam Rainsy Case

Sam Rainsy’s letter to the Editor
published in The Cambodia Daily,
July 23, 2010

MU SOCHUA FINE DECISION INCONSISTENT WITH SAM RAINSY CASE

In the article “Fine Can Be Taken From Mu Sochua’s Pay” (July 21, page 26), you reported, “The court notified Ms Sochua on Friday that, at the request of Mr Hun Sen’s lawyer, the money [corresponding to an unpaid $2,125 fine stemming from Ms Sochua’s defamation conviction] would be deducted directly from her salary.”

In a similar case in 2009, Heng Samrin, the president of the National Assembly, publicly said there was no law allowing any deduction from a parliamentarian’s salary [of any amount of money he would owe to a state institution].

The ruling CPP was then considering lifting my parliamentary immunity because, following the 2008 general elections, I had refused to pay a fine imposed on me by the National Election Committee, which had consequently filed a lawsuit against me before the court.

On February 26, 2009, the National Assembly's Permanent Committee effectively lifted my parliamentary immunity, but my pay was not cut.

One can see that, for face-saving reasons and other possible expedients, an authoritarian regime usually feeds a kangaroo court with laughable inconsistencies.

Sam Rainsy
Member of Parliament
Paris

Sacrava's Political Cartoon: The Kangaroo Court

Cartoon by Sacrava (on the web at http://sacrava.blogspot.com)

Mu Sochua: The court verdict is political and it is not based on the law

Mu Sochua answering reporters' questions

04 August 2009
Everyday.com.kh
Translated from Khmer by Socheata

After the Phnom Penh municipal court issued its verdict against SRP MP Mu Sochua, whose parliamentary immunity was lifted by the National Assembly, and it declared that she lost in the defamation lawsuit brought up by Hun Xen, Mrs. Mu Sochua indicated that the court verdict was not based on the law, but it rather a political sentence.

Mrs. Mu Sochua told reporters on Tuesday morning, following the court verdict ordering her to pay a fine and a compensation to Hun Xen for a total amount of 16.5 million riels, that in the decision handed down by the Phnom Penh municipal court, the judge did not use her conscience nor the law to judge this case for her.

Mu Sochua said: “Today’s decision of the PPenh municipal court is a decision which I can see clearly that it was done according to an order issued by politicians, and this decision turned the innocent people into those who are sentenced instead.”

Mu Sochua added that the decision is political and it is not based on the law, and she said that the verdict is not one provided by a fair tribunal at all. The court decision is ordered by people in the high echelon. She said: “I regret very much that I did not receive justice in front of the law because the judicial system in Cambodia is not independent and neutral, and it is filled with influence from those politicians in power.”

She added: “A fair trial is an important goal that must be defended by a lawyer of my choice, not one who is pressured by politics. Therefore, the sentence handed down earlier is not one stemming from a trial, it is only an order issued by a politician. The sentence in which I lost while I am a victim is not acceptable by me.”

She said: “I demand justice. My stance remains the same, as long as I do not receive justice, I will continue to fight for justice. The court injustice and the political travesty of the judicial system affect so many innocent Cambodians, for a very long time already.”

Mu Sochua added that even if the SRP agrees to pay her fine, she still continues her case in court until she receives justice, and this justice is not only just for herself, but it is for all the population.