GEORGE TOWN, Dec 11 — A lawyer representing Nepalese woman, Nirmala Thapa, is alleging that his client was charged and convicted for abortion without him or a fluent translator present in court last month.

Cecil Rajendra claimed the 24-year-old migrant worker went through the gamut of legal proceedings at the Bukit Mertajam Sessions Court alone on November 21 as he was never informed of the court date.

He further claimed his firm had written to the court on November 7 to inform them of his appointment as Nirmala’s counsel.

“Nirmala was remanded at the Seberang Perai prison since her arrest on October 9 and I had informed the court to notify us of the date she will be produced in court and the nature of the charges against her,” he said in a statement issued today.

He alleged that Nirmala also was not provided with a fluent Nepalese interpreter before she was charged and convicted under Section 315 of the Penal Code.

“This in itself is a flagrant breach of the rules of natural justice,” he said.

Nirmala was sentenced one-year’s jail under Section 315 for conducting an act to prevent a child being born alive or to cause it to die after birth.

Cecil is now in the midst of filing an appeal against the conviction and sentence on behalf of Nirmala, but urged Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail to drop the case now.

Nirmala is believed to be the first woman in the country to be jailed for undergoing abortion.

Abortion is permitted under Section 312 of the Penal Code where there is an exception for a registered medical practitioner to terminate a pregnancy if he is of the opinion that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life, physical and mental health of the pregnant woman.

According to the chronology of events, Cecil said Nirmala, who was accompanied by her partner, went to a government-approved clinic, Poliklinik Ng, to have her pregnancy terminated for health, mental and social reasons on October 9.

Cecil said the medical practitioner had performed the procedure strictly according to the health ministry guidelines, but when Nirmala was resting in the clinic after the operation, there was a raid conducted by the police and health department officials.

The doctor, Nirmala and her partner were detained for questioning while medical reports, documents, computers and medical products were seized from the clinic.

He said the doctor and Nirmala’s partner were both released after having their statements recorded, but Nirmala was remanded until she was produced in court to be charged and convicted.

Cecil noted that Nirmala was charged and convicted for committing the act of preventing a child from being born.

“The termination of her pregnancy was conducted lawfully and good faith by a qualified medical practitioner so she did not conduct the act herself as per the charge suggests,” he said.

Cecil also pointed out that the doctor had confirmed in his police statement that he had performed the termination in good faith according to Section 92 of the Penal Code that states that a bona fide act for the benefit of another is not an offence.

“We are at a loss on why Nirmala was charged and convicted for performing the act of terminating the pregnancy when she did not perform it on herself as it was performed by the doctor,” he said.         

He said Nirmala’s conviction has raised serious questions about selective prosecution, gender discrimination and victimisation of foreign workers.