Lawyer Jorge Menezes (left), Sulu Sou and Scott Chiang
In the aftermath of last week’s sentence imposing a 120-day fine sentence on Sulu Sou and Scott Chiang, several lawmakers and experts interviewed by the Times and other media outlets expressed mixed views on the case and its outcome.
According to lawmaker Wu Chou Kit, the decision shows there is a separation of powers. “As a member of the Legislative Assembly [AL], we should always keep [the powers] apart and [trust] in the court’s independence,” he said. “I think that the court decision was based on the actual situation and done according to the law and I respect such [a] decision. I do not have any [other] opinion about that; ultimately, the court’s ruling [has proved] to be independent, fair, and right,” Wu noted.
Questioned on the possibility of the return of lawmaker Sou to the hemicycle soon, Wu said “I believe that we all represent different voices at the AL and this is a good thing,” adding, “I will welcome him back to the AL as soon as all the legal issues have been [re]solved.”
Less optimistic is Jorge Morbey, a Portuguese commentator and historian who told TDM Radio, “Sulu Sou will not return to the [Legislative] Assembly.”
“Sulu Sou is not going back to the [Legislative] Assembly. Whoever [pulls] ‘these strings’ will not allow that,” Morbey said, adding, “he got away with it now but there are more cases under investigation and then he will be a persistent offender.”
This fact leads Morbey to think that Sou will not be given any chance to return to the AL to fulfill what remains of his mandate as a lawmaker.
In Morbey’s opinion, it is also likely that the Public Prosecution (MP) will appeal the sentence in the Court of First Instance (TJB), which handed a penalty of 120 days to both Sou and Scott Chiang.
Morbey said, “I’m sure [that MP will appeal],” he said, adding, “because that’s its political mission.”
The commentator expressed his disappointment, saying, “the bar has been set so low now that it’s even a joy [for some people] when they [are] fined,” concluding, “it should be a joy if they were considered not guilty.”
José Pereira Coutinho, also interviewed by TDM Radio, says that the “sentence of fine was somehow a way of justice,” noting that there was a lot of “pressure” for a heftier penalty.
“I’m very happy that the court had the courage to make this decision, and although the Public Prosecution called for prison sentence,” he said, “the court handed a hefty fine due the pressure that came from all directions. The MP was very politicized,” he continued, showing some caution regarding the possibility of an appeal from the MP.
Arnaldo Gonçalves, a legal expert and a political science teacher, thinks the fine was “an ill-considered act, […] a typical reaction of the youth, and we all as youngsters have committed acts of this nature,” he told Ponto Final.
In Gonçalves’ opinion, “it’s a pity” if the Public Prosecution appeals the sentence, as the trial “was already over- politicized.”
Speaking to TDM, pro-democrat lawmaker Ng Kuok Cheong said, “it is one of the intentions of this strategy to address these social movements in a severe way. This is the government’s strategy and also [is] corroborated by the Public Prosecution,” adding, “this will attack the social movements and the social actions from civil society.”
In Ng’s opinion, the actions from the local government also find support and justification in the “cooperation with the authorities of the Central government.” RM/JZ
Coutinho says ‘Everybody is Afraid’
LAWMAKER PEREIRA Coutinho criticized the fact that some of the witnesses during the trial of activists Sulu Sou and Scott Chiang may be prosecuted. “It is a witch-hunt. […] If things are done like this, nobody wants to be a witness. Everybody is afraid. And justice is not served,” he said, when interviewed on the sidelines of a Legislative Assembly plenary meeting.
Law is ‘unclear’ regarding whether Sou can resume post
António Katchi
Questioned by the Times as to whether suspended lawmaker Sulu Sou can immediately return to his position as lawmaker after the sentence given by the Court of First Instance (TJB) becomes final, legal expert and academic António Katchi says that is a very complex question and one difficult to answer clearly.
“As a matter of fact, the law doesn’t provide any clear-cut answers to that question, so no wonder there are different opinions,” Katchi said, adding, “The law provides […] an automatic cessation of the suspension in case the defendant is acquitted, but says nothing about a conviction other than imprisonment. Nor does it require a deliberation by the Legislative Assembly. Hence, different hypotheses could be raised.”
The same legal expert remarked there will be three things that can happen: “[An] automatic reinstatement once the sentence becomes final; automatic reinstatement once the fine is paid (because only at that moment is imprisonment really ruled out); [or] reinstatement only upon decision by the Legislative Assembly,” he said.
The two first options are more or less consensual and have a simpler resolution, but the third one might involve a more complex situation. “The third [scenario] would give the other lawmakers the power to block or to delay indefinitely the suspended legislator’s reinstatement, which would be unconstitutional. They could do it simply by doing nothing – a case of unconstitutionality by omission.”
Although clearly mentioning that this case begs for more careful and in depth analysis, Katchi “dared” to forecast a possible resolution: “In my view, the suspension actually expires at the very first moment, but even [if] it [didn’t], it would certainly expire at the second one, no matter whether the other legislators want it or not.” RM
No Comments