[ad_1]
SINGAPORE: The Attorney General’s Office (AGC) issued a letter to lawyer M Ravi demanding that he apologize and retract the accusations he made during an interview on the case of a drug trafficker sentenced to death.
Ravi had made accusations against the prosecution that AGC called “false and highly inflammatory” in a video interview with The Online Citizen (TOC) on Monday, after Ravi’s case on behalf of Gobi Avedian ended in Superior Court.
In a statement on Tuesday (October 20), AGC said it sent Ravi a letter early Tuesday demanding an apology and asking him to unconditionally retract the allegations he made during the interview.
Mr. Ravi’s request on behalf of Gobi resulted in the Malaysian convict being sentenced to prison and flogged with a reduced charge of attempted drug importation rather than the death penalty for drug importation.
AGC has demanded that Mr. Ravi retract the following allegations in his interview with TOC: that the prosecutor has been “too enthusiastic” in prosecuting the Gobi, and this “has led to the death sentence” for Gobi; that it was “worrying” that the prosecution was taking a different case before the High Court and the Court of Appeal; that the prosecutor, among others, should apologize to Gobi for the suffering he went through; and that the justice of the prosecution was questioned by the Court of Appeal.
“These are serious allegations that the prosecutor has acted in bad faith or maliciously in the prosecution of (Gobi),” AGC said.
“They are false and highly inflammatory. It is highly improper and completely contrary to Mr. Ravi’s duties as an officer of the court for him to make these baseless, baseless and misleading accusations.”
LEE: Malaysian man sentenced to death for importing drugs escapes from the gallows for the second time
AGC added that the Court of Appeal did not issue adverse rulings against the prosecutor for the Gobi prosecution.
In fact, the Court of Appeals said in its ruling that the initial decision to convict Gobi was “correct at the time (it was) taken”, and that none of the arguments considered in the ruling “could have been formulated in view of the position legal as it was understood then “.
The judgment also noted that the parties did not benefit from the guidance of the new case Adili Chibuike Ejike v. PP.
AGC gave Ravi until noon on October 22 to respond.
