Nazri refused to entertain talk of a conspiracy. — file picKUALA LUMPUR, June 27 — Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz told the Dewan Rakyat today that a magistrate’s court here had rightfully exercised its discretionary powers when it screened the sex video allegedly featuring Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim last Friday.

The de facto law minister, however, refused to address speculation raised in the House by opposition MPs on whether there was a covert plan involving the court, the “Datuk T” trio and the prosecution to screen the video to the public gallery.

“The court has the discretionary power to allow the screening of the video. The core issue here is whether the court has the power or not, not whether in exercising that power, it was wrong or right... that is up to your respective views,” he said when winding up debates on the Judges’ Remuneration (Amendment) Bill 2011.

Nazri was responding to questions raised by several opposition MPs including Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugor), R. Sivarasa (PKR-Subang), M. Manogaran (DAP-Telok Intan) and John Fernandez (DAP-Seremban) on the purpose of the screening, which they claimed was unnecessary as all three accused had pleaded guilty to the charges.

The “Datuk T” trio — former Malacca chief minister Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Tamby Chik, businessman Datuk Shazryl Eskay Abdullah and former Perkasa treasurer-general Datuk Shuib Lazim — were slapped fines on Friday for their involvement in the public screening of a sex video purportedly featuring Anwar, Pakatan Rakyat’s (PR) de facto leader.

All three pleaded guilty to the charges against them but the court had allowed the screening of the controversial 21-minute recording, which showed sex acts between a woman believed to be a foreign prostitute and a man resembling Anwar.

In an immediate response, Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee said the court should not have screened the video as the trio had already admitted to the crime.

The lawyer had said the court’s action was inconsistent with standard procedures in such cases, where evidence is only revealed during the course of a full trial and when the accused maintains his or her innocence.

“The issue of the court’s discretionary power cannot be questioned but from what I understand, the screening of the video was raised by one of the accused’s lawyers, (Datuk Seri Muhammad) Shafee Abdullah; he asked for it to be screened, not the DPP (deputy public prosecutor).

“So what raises question here is that it appears that the court seemed ready to screen the video... is this a conspiracy? The DPP did not ask for it but the court allowed it and was prepared for it, as if it knew that the lawyer would request for it. This is like a drama set, a pre-written script... all three parties seemed to know that the video would be screened,” Sivarasa told the House today.

When the trio appeared in the magistrate’s court on Friday, two flat-screen television sets had been set up on either side of the courtroom before the case was called up.

“I cannot give an explanation on this because whatever transpired (in the courtroom) is outside of my jurisdiction. What you have said is speculation. I do not know if this is a drama or not... I can only answer on the court’s power, and the court has the power.

“Whether or not there was a conspiracy, I too would like to know,” Nazri said in response.

He added later that any party upset the proceedings on Friday should raise the matter through the appropriate legal channel.