Kem Sokha leaves the Phnom Penh municipal court on March 2. Hean Rangsey
The defence team of former opposition leader Kem Sokha on March 2 finished their presentation of evidence which they hoped would prove the innocence of their client, who has been charged with conspiring with a foreign power to topple the government.
Speaking to the media after the hearing, Meng Sopheary – one of Sokha’s four defence attorneys – said they had presented the evidence to prove that Sokha had not committed treason.
“We have now presented all 78 pieces of evidence that were submitted to the prosecutor. Next week, the judge will make a decision on our evidence – we may need to submit further exhibits at next week’s hearing,” she said.
Sopheary said that as a lawyer, she had to follow standard legal procedures in defending the case. However, she was of the view that this was a political case, and as such could be solved through dialogue and a political settlement. This would be in the interest of all Cambodians, she added.
She said the March 2 hearing focused on alleged irregularities of the election, voter lists and protests organised by the Supreme Court-dissolved Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) in 2013. She said the protests held demanded an independent investigation of the election and its results.
The court also reviewed evidence collected from reports of local NGOs such as LICADHO and Transparency International Cambodia, among others, who had monitored the election. Those NGOs, Sopheary said, had presented their findings of irregularities, which led the former CNRP to demand an investigation.
Phlang Sophal, a spokesman for the prosecutor’s office, could not be reached for comment on March 2.
But Sopheary said hearings will resume on March 9.
Cambodian Centre for Human Rights (CCHR) executive director Chak Sopheap – who observed the hearing – said long reviews of the evidence were carried out.
“The hearing this morning was not as combative as previous ones. The judge interrupted immediately if there were any arguments. He instructed the defence to present the evidence without adding long explanations or arguments,” she said.
