Chiang’s lawyer asks for trial to be suspended

Pedro Chiang’s lawyer asked yesterday for the trial to be suspended, until the Second Instance Court decides whether it will validate or not the evidence presented against his client. Several lawyers subscribed the request to suspend the trial, but judges from the First Instance Court – which is judging Pedro Chiang - decided the trial should go on.
Pedro Chiang is one of the four defendants currently being tried in the fifth case of having allegedly bribed former transport and public works secretary Ao Man Long.
None of them were present in yesterday’s hearing.
According to Radio Macau, two days ago, Pedro Chiang – who is not in Macau - was once again notified by the Second Instance Court to be heard about a dispatch regarding the validity of the evidence and searches in his case. The defendant’s lawyer Joao Miguel Barros says the document from the Second Instance Court recognizes that Pedro Chiang might not have been duly notified about the charges. It is something that the lawyer believes might be a sign suggesting that the Second Instance Court is getting ready to nullify everything that was produced against Pedro Chiang – something that would make the whole case start again from scratch.
However, the prosecution was not convinced by Barros’s argument. The Public Prosecutions Office (MP) claimed Pedro Chiang had been notified by the Commission Against Corruption (CCAC) and did not attend any hearing, although he was aware of the case.
The First Instance Court argued there is a defendant in preventive detention and the criminal procedures don’t allow a trial to be suspended for more than 30 days, or otherwise the evidence will loss its effectiveness. Also, the court said it was unlikely that the Second Instance Court could hand down a decision within the next 30 days.  Therefore, the judges decided there was no reason to suspend the trial.

Politicians
in the witness stand?

In addition, Joao Miguel Barros requested to summon ex-Chief Executive Edmund Ho Hau Wah and ex-Legislative Assembly president Susana Chou to testify in the court.
However, judge Mário Silvestre reminded lawyer João Miguel Barros of the law that imposes restrictions to former members of the SAR government, after they leave their post. Article 5 of law 22/2009 states that a former Chief Executive – as well as other high ranking officials – “cannot be inquired as witnesses, experts or deponents, in criminal procedures”, about “confidential or reserved facts they came to know about while on duty”, unless they previously obtain the Chief Executive’s permission for that.
In addition, only when the incumbent Chief Executive approves can a former Chief Executive testify as a witness.
The lawyer argued there are issues that are not secret and nothing prevents Edmund Ho from being a witness. He also guaranteed he only wishes to ask questions about public matters of his governing.
The MP, on the other hand, argued that it shouldn’t be the defence or the court to decide what is or is not a confidential matter and suggested João Miguel Barros sending his questions to the government in advance, for evaluation. The proposal – which was not accepted – didn’t please Pedro Chiang’s lawyer.
Besides Edmund Ho, the list of witnesses also includes the name of some legislators. According to previous news from Radio Macau, at least Chan Meng Kam, Ung Choi Kun and Leonel Alves were on the list. However, the law that establishes the statutes of legislators determines that it has to be the Legislative Assembly to decide whether it will authorize a legislator to take stand as a witness.
One thing is already certain though: Leonel Alves will not be a witness in this case. Alves – who was also summoned by Pedro Chiang to be a witness – is also the lawyer of one of the defendants in this case. He argued that there was a conflict of duties and he would not leave his client’s defence, so Joao Miguel Barros gave up the intention of listening to his testimony.
Also yesterday, the judges overruled a requirement presented last week by Pedro Chiang’s lawyer, in which he asked that CCAC witnesses should be the first to be heard.
Judge Mário Silvestre argued that “there’s a reason” when witnesses are listed in a certain order.
On the other hand, Pedro Chiang’s father in his testimony said that his shares in the company involved in the case were given by his son and he had never taken out any money or participated in the company’s meetings and decision making process.
He told the court he only received MOP16,000 from Pedro Chiang as “pocket money” every month.
The father also said he did not know Ao Man Long or any applications regarding land concession or construction projects.
He said he would need to sign some documents to sell properties as requested by his son from time to time, but he wasn’t clear about the content in the documents.