A little knowledge of anything can sometimes be a very dangerous thing

Posted on November 27, 2010


I read with some amusement some of the comments that propose that the burden rests on the shoulders of ex-PKR sec-gen Salehuddin to prove his assertion that the now much talked-about letter of 2nd February, 2009 said to have been signed by Salehuddin and despatched to Jenapala to notify the latter of his sacking from the party, is a forgery.

Please understand that Salehuddin’s assertion is negative in nature.

Salehuddin is effectively saying that he did not sign the letter.

“I did not sign the letter”, is a negative assertion.

How do you prove an ‘I did not’ assertion?

How do you prove an  ‘I did not sodomise Saiful’ assertion?

Sure, an alibi defence to show that you were not at the scene of the crime at the material time, or that there are witnesses who can confirm to be with you at the time of the alleged offence would exonerate you of the charge, but should you be put to this proof without the accuser first  bearing the burden of making out a prima facie case?

The law, as I understand it, places the burden on he who asserts the positive, to prove the positive.

So he who asserts ‘You did sodomise Saiful’, bears the burden to prove the fact of the sodomy.

As does he who asserts that Salehuddin did sign the letter.

Posted in: Digressions