first drafted Thu 4th Feb 2016
PENAMPANG. Two local community leaders from a semi-remote
upland here had their day in the native court where their cellphones were
checked as part of the evidence.
The village chief as plaintiff alleged that a catechist from
the same village had uttered insulting and slanderous accusations against him
via SMS as follows:-
* On 3 Oct 2015 the message said, the village chief had
robbed the villagers of their source of living
* that he is a liar who had lied to several villagers
* that the village chief has lied to the park rangers and
soon he will be arrested by the Parks.
* that any message
he sent through the fast messaging system cannot be kept or saved in
handphones.
The village chief said when he called the catechist to
his house to discuss what he means in his messages he answered that he is too
busy because his friend Gutuk had called him for assistance to carry some wild
boar out of the jungle but later on found out this was not true.
On 6 Dec 2015 the catechist was alleged to have informed
several people at a church that he would not bother attending any court hearing
until the third summon and hence did not attend a hearing set on 7 Dec 2015. The plaintiff added that as far as he knows
the defendant has a certificate as a catechist and one of his activities is to
lead prayers in the village. Hence he should be assisting me as the village
head in uniting the villagers and not otherwise, he said. He pleaded to the
court to take action as per the native adat in the hope that he will not repeat
the same offence towards himself or others.
In response, the defendant said the incident occurred but
denied that the intention was to insult and hence some of the allegations were
not true. He informed that this is his first time in court so the judges asked
him which of the charges were not true.
The defendant informed he had obtained a small contract
from the Sabah Parks to clear the boundary of the parks and that is all he has
for a source of income but the plaintiff asked for half of the job. So the
court queried whether the plaintiff only asked or he demanded or seized half of
the job but no clear answer was given.
He also denied sending a message that the village chief
had lied to the people. Hence the bench started reading the text as received in
the handphone of the plaintiff and confirmed the number of the sender as
belonging to the defendant.
Regarding the statement that anything said via fast
messaging system cannot be kept in handphones, both the plaintiff and defendant
himself claimed not understanding what that meant !
When asked why he ignored the village chief request for a
meeting making an excuse about the wild boar, the defendant answered he was
only joking.
He also confirmed having a certificate as a catechist
with activities including leading prayers and giving religious instructions to
the faithful. He admitted saying that he will attend the third summons to court
but he denied all the rest of the allegations.
After the plaintiff and defendant have signed their
statements, the bench comprising of District Chief Bryan Matasing, Native
Chiefs Andrew S Lidaun and Woritus Paulus set the date of the verdict on 3
March 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment