Laywers deny being involved in USJ temple violence

KUALA LUMPUR (Nov 29): Lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla today clarified that he and his colleague Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali were not involved in “hiring” thugs during the violence that took place at the Seafield Sri Maha Mariamman Temple in USJ25, reported the Malay Mail today.

Haniff said in a statement issued today that he together with Rafique were hired to represent One City Development Sdn Bhd’s employees who were among those detained by the authorities during the riots at and near the temple.

“I, Haniff Khatri and Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali, strongly condemn the malicious accusations and fake slander that was circulated by anyone, and give stern warning that we will take the necessary action in law against all and any individuals who were involved in the circulation of those malicious accusations and false slander, if the malicious actions are not stopped immediately!!” he wrote in the statement.

According to a report by The Star, photos of both the lawyers with captions saying they were responsible for hiring thugs went “viral on messaging platforms such as WhatsApp”.

Haniff added that both he and Rafique were “living proof” of how the dissemination of false information could impact the safety of those who were not involved in a case and maybe even hobble investigations.

The Star also reported Haniff saying that none of One City Development’s three staff remanded are practising lawyers.

Haniff explained that “one of them was a law graduate but that he did not practise law while working with the company”.

It was reported yesterday Home Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin disclosed that a police investigation has revealed that lawyers from a developer company hired a group of Malay men to “take control” of the situation at a Hindu temple in Selangor last Monday but they intruded into the house of worship.

Haniff said: “As I have said in my writings or interviews, it is the responsibility of the authorities to give public statements regarding developments on investigations into cases, especially that of public interest.

“However at the same time, those public statements cannot reveal specific information that can threaten the safety of anyone or affect the investigations and a fair criminal trial, if it comes to that.”