Charges against US citizenMr. John William Yettaw,
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, DawKhin Khin Win and
Ma Win Ma Ma heard for ninth day
   
 

NAY PYI TAW, 28 May - Yangon North District Court continued its criminal case 47/2009 for the ninth day at 10 am today, hearing the charges against US citizen Mr John William Yettaw, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Daw Khin Khin Win and Ma Win Ma Ma.

When questioned by the court, defence witness U Kyi Win in his statement said that he got is B.A degree in 1969, and LLB degree, in 1971; that he completed chamber in 1972, and since then he had been practising law as a Higher Grade Pleader; that he became a Supreme Court advocate in 1976; that in 1998-99 his Supreme Court advocate licence was revoked, following the case sued against him under Article 505 (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; that he considered the expression "not to communicate with outsiders by letter" manifested in paragraph (b) of the extended prohibition order of evidence (b-1) meant not to communicate with outsiders, and it was not concerned with an outsider who came and communicated with the person concerned; that he said so, because the phrase of Article 3 (a) of Chapter II definition of expressions law 1973 said that "the definition of the expressions stated in the provisions shall be the same as their everyday use"; that that was why he stated that the 1974 constitution was no longer effective; that Mr John William Yettaw entered the restricted house twice and if security members allowed him they too could be considered to have violated the law; that if action was not taken in that case, it had to be considered that he was legally allowed to do so and he was innocent; and that the host who had allowed him to get into the house would be legally allowed to do so.

Mr John William Yettaw's lawyer U Khin Maung Oo, cross-questioning defence witness U Kyi Win, said that if asked which sections could be applied to take action against Mr John William Yettaw for his entering the restrited house at night, action could be taken against him under Articles 451/452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; that it would be right if action could be taken against him only under Article 456 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his entering the house at night; that if it was said that the restricted building was Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's current property, it was the State's current property because the State had deployed security members around it; and that if it was said that if asked whether the building belonged to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, it could not be said that it was hers.

When cross-examined by Prosecutor District Law Officer, defence witness U Kyi Win said that it was likely that he happened to reply to the questions of Mr John William Yettaw's lawyer by referring to wrong article of law; that he did not know the fact that one who wants to enter the house compound of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi prohibited by authorities must do so only after asking permission from her; that it was true that once, the request of Mr Gambari himself to meet Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was turned down by her; that according to the Article 456, although a person secretly enters a house, it does not mean that he commits a crime if his entry is approved by the host; that whether the intruder Mr John William Yettaw committed the crime of intruding the house, it does not mean that he did so because he was given shelter by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi herself; that whether Mr John William Yettaw made contacts with her, according to the restrictions law, it does not mean that he did so as he gave her books and documents and left the house carrying photos and video documents with him on the way back; if the 1974 constitution was the existing one or the one still in force, it was null and void; that it was said so according to the Noti--fication No 1/90; that according to the Declaration No 6/88 of State Law and Order Restoration Council, it was true that all the existing laws were valid so long as the SLORC abolished and revoked them when it assumed State duties on 18 September 1988; that the constitution was not applicable; that it was true that the Law to Safeguard the State Against the Dangers of Those Desiring to Cause Subversive Acts had not been abolished; that he did not know that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's lawyers U Kyi Win and U Hla Myo Myint claimed the right to defend in the appeal form dated 9 October 2008 submitted to the government referring to Article 23 and Article 167(B) of the 1974 constitution; that he did not know either that U Kyi Win wrote letters to the Special Branch requesting to hear the appeal form by referring to the 1974 constitution; that if he was examined as a defence witness or a law expert, he helped to ensure fair and justice both as a defence witness and a law expert.

Then, Mr John William Yettaw from Criminal Case 48/2009 was examined. He stated that he entered the house compound of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in the morning of 4 May 2009; that it was at about midnight on 5 May that he left Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's residence and that he went to her house of his own accord.

Then, when the district law officer, prosecutor, cross-examined Mr John William Yettaw, he stated that he applied for a visa to visit Yangon in November, 2008, and in May, 2009. He also stated that, in applying for the visa, it was true that he had to sign to pledge that he would abide by the existing laws of Myanmar and the particulars of visa rules and regulations during his stay in Myanmar, that, in entering Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's house twice, it was true that he secretly entered the house at night without asking for permission, that he knew Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's house was guarded by security members and it was a restricted area where outsiders were not allowed to enter, that he had to wade through water in entering the house twice, and that, if by doing so it amounted to breaking the immigration law of Myanmar and the law of Yangon City Development Committee, he did not mean to breach those laws.

Mr. John William Yettaw said his statement for the lawsuit filed against him under the Criminal Case No.48/2009 was the same as his statement for the Criminal Case No. 49/ 2009 filed against him under the Yangon Municipal Act 28.

Later, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure Article 539 b. (1) and provisions of the article 621 of court manual, members of the jury at Yangon North District Court, law officers and Lawyer U Khin Maung Oo, went to the residence of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to inspect how Mr. John William Yettaw entered and left the residence.

The proceedings are adjourned until 10 am on 1 June to hear the final proceedings of the trial against US citizen Mr. John William Yettaw, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Daw Khin Khin Win and Ma Win Ma Ma.

(Source: The New Light of Myanmar dated 29 May 2009)

   
   
Copyright 2009 - The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Myanmar. All rights reserved.