Lawyer Gobind Singh Deo was today reprimanded by a Court of Appeal judge for a statement which the latter described as "bordering to contempt".

The lawyer who is representing Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja (photo) - the co-accused of jailed ex-deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim - earned the wrath of Justice Pajan Singh Gill when he urged the court not to punish his client for merely being associated with Anwar.

"Let not Sukma suffer because of other efforts that are being made to deny Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim bail," said Gobind at the close of his submissions.

Pajan immediately cautioned the lawyer and reminded him that his argument was bordering on contempt.

"Watch your words young man. Be careful in your line of submission. Its bordering on contempt," said the visibly upset judge, who sat with Justices Hashim Mohd Yusof and Richard Malanjum.

Undeterred, Gobind replied: "This is my view and I stand by it."

Anwar and his adopted brother Sukma are seeking bail pending their appeals against a High Court decision to convict them for sodomising Azizan Abu Bakar.

On Aug 8, 2000, High Court judge Arifin Jaka sentenced Anwar to nine years' jail while Sukma, an Indonesian born businessman, was slapped with a six-year jail term and four strokes of the rotan. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in April this year.

Clear distinction

Earlier, Gobind told the court that it should draw a clear distinction between his client's bail application and that submitted by Anwar.

"His (Sukma's) greatest mistake was to be charged with Datuk Seri Anwar. He is just an ordinary person who became a victim due to the extreme pressure put on this case which involved a man who was said to be a threat," Gobind said.

"But how political is Sukma? What kind of threat does he pose to anyone? There is nothing to show that he is a dangerous person."

The lawyer reminded the court that Sukma is seeking continuation of bail which was granted during the sodomy trial and after he was convicted, as opposed to Anwar who was never granted bail.

"At the hearing stage, he attended every session. After he was convicted, he continued to attend the hearing of the appeals," he said.

"Not once did he show any indication that he would abscond. If he wanted to, he could have done that right after he was charged, but he didn't."

'Inordinate delay'

Gobind also argued that there would be an inordinate delay for the appeal to be fully disposed by the Federal Court considering that the Court of Appeal has yet to release its grounds of judgment for rejecting the duo's appeals last April.

"This court made its decision on April 18. Today is July 22. Three months have passed and we have yet to receive the grounds of judgment. We are not in the position to say that we will not succeed in the appeal," he said.

To this, Pajan told him that the grounds would be out in the near future.

"Yes I have no doubt that we will receive it in the future, but with the greatest respect for this court, this is what Your Lordship had said a month ago," replied the lawyer.

Hearing resumes tomorrow.