National Assembly Chairwoman requests clarification on Chau Thi Thu Nga's statement about 'running' for National Assembly seat

Regarding Chau Thi Thu Nga's testimony, Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court Nguyen Hoa Binh affirmed: 'There is nothing secretive or hidden here'.

At the questioning session of Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court Nguyen Hoa Binh this morning, National Assembly Chairwoman Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan requested: "Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court should clearly tell voters that at the trial of Chau Thi Thu Nga's case, the presiding judge requested the defendant not to disclose her candidacy for the National Assembly, and that this must be clearly explained to the people."

The Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court said: "When there was public opinion and the press said that the panel of judges did not allow the defendant to testify, which seemed to be a concealment and a violation of procedural law, and some newspapers even said that the electricity was cut off for 30 seconds, we immediately requested a technical inspection of the courtroom, asked the presiding judge to report and explain, and we met with the lawyer.

Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court Nguyen Hoa Binh. Photo: Minh Dat

The trial proceeded normally, without any technical problems. The case file contained all the documents such as Chau Thi Thu Nga's testimony, the investigation agency's decision to separate the case, the confrontation record of Nga and related subjects. The presiding judge stopped the testimony and did not allow further testimony. This case was separated according to the provisions of the law.

According to him, in reality we separate cases a lot, like the Construction Bank case where we separated 3 cases, the Ocean Bank case where we tried a part of it and tried many separate cases.

If new details appear in the trial, and there is no decision to separate the case, it is the responsibility of the panel of judges to clarify, but because of the separation and decision, the panel of judges is allowed not to mention it anymore.

Similarly, in the case of Ocean Bank, in the first trial, the loss of 800 billion was true, but in the second trial, the investigation agency decided to separate the case so the panel of judges did not mention it again.

The Chief Justice said that not mentioning the content of the separated case that is already in the law is a normal practice, not something too different.

Regarding Chau Thi Thu Nga's testimony, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court affirmed: "There is nothing hidden or concealed here."

He said that Ms. Nga spent money for two purposes: First, to pay the local council to have her name on the candidate list; second, to solve the problem of the press writing about Nga's fake doctorate at the time of the election. The first purpose is two parts, the second is one part.

“According to Nga’s testimony, Nga knew a gold trading company with wide connections. Nga gave him money many times, once 100 thousand dollars, once 200 thousand dollars. Only two people knew about the transfer and there was no signature. After taking him, Nga did not know where he went or what he did. In the confrontation record, he said he knew Nga but did not receive any money,” the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said.

According to him, in such a situation, it is necessary for the investigation agency to separate, the investigation agency is continuing and there will be another public trial on this matter.

According to VNN