Appendix E: Statement in Defense of Dr. Vu by Lawyer Le Quoc Quan

[Published on blog Le Quoc Quan on April 1, 2011][195]

This coming April 4 will see the trial against Doctor of Law Cu Huy Ha Vu. He has been indicted under article 88 of the Penal Code. This article has been metaphorically referred to as two eight-shaped handcuffs used to imprison countless numbers of patriots.

On that date, the Procuracy, acting as the prosecutor at the trial, will continue to produce unconstitutional arguments to convict Dr. Vu in the same manner as many similar cases in the past.

Other lawyers have extensively discussed the legal acts and defense statements; therefore I am writing this statement not to go deeper into academic discussion, but in essence to express my respect for brother Vu, whom I believe should never have been called a criminal in the past, present, or future. I believe that those like brother Vu should never be tried under criminal law. 

On the contrary, the state should be grateful for his concerns about the homeland and the nation. The voice of appreciation could spread from the coastal area occupied by a debt-ridden Vinashin to the Central Highlands where the bauxite disaster is waiting to strike; from the North where elderly mothers toil in back-breaking jobs to pay the taxes, to the South where war invalids are being spitefully discriminated against.

I consider the arrest of Vu a reactionary and unprofessional act. It is reactionary as it goes against the progressive trend of the country’s movement towards international integration and the renovation efforts that Vietnam has achieved in the past 20 years. It is unprofessional when a powerful security force had to resort to a pretext of “two used condoms”[196] to arrest an individual who has openly expressed his political viewpoints. Furthermore, the arrest created the widespread perception that personal and petty revenge was at play, which harms the very reputations of the leaders in power.

I particularly admire Vu for his candid and lucid rationale in a “Westernized” way. He acted and spoke according to his professional forte. Similarly, the late lawyer Phan Van Truong decided to return to Vietnam because of his patriotism, but when he found disgraceful practices he became outspoken, despite being aware that doing so would cause frictions and troubles to himself. It is that simple. Vu’s worries about the risk of bauxite mining, his discontent with the discrimination against “brothers” who were formerly on the opposite side of the battle front, or his deep concern about corruption caused him to speak out. His outspokenness is spectacular and sincere.

I would also like to draw the judges’ attention to the trial of Phan Boi Chau – who was indicted with similar charges as Vu in 1925, almost 90 years ago, under the rule of the French colonial regime. “[S]ince early morning, waves of people flowed to the court to attend the trial open to the public. The court was inundated with people, from inside the courtroom to the outside yard,” (“The Phan Boi Chau case”, Bui Dinh, Tieng Viet Publishing House, Hanoi, 1950).

It is not only that. Before and after the trial, students walked out of class and merchants abandoned markets to express their support for the elder Phan and protest against the verdict. After nearly 90 years, the regime considered “10,000 times more democratic than capitalism” will likely “cover the mouths” of those inside the courtroom and “block the feet” of the public outside the courtroom.

I would also like to inform reporters who are reporting on the upcoming trial that during the Phan Boi Chau case, when the Communist Party had not yet been founded, contemporary newspapers exuberantly reported on the case, providing various perspectives, and creating a heated political debate in both the academic and patriotic spheres. If we were to have freedom of press today, the case would see many boisterous and creative debates, essays, news articles, and live reportage.

Technically speaking, brother Vu did not conduct any specific act that could be considered as propagandizing against the state. He simply criticized the government - any strong government is improved through criticism of its weaknesses.

The act of trying brother Vu is clearly unconstitutional. It plainly “bites” into article 69 of the Constitution. It goes against Article 19 of the United Nations’ Declaration on Human Rights which stipulates that citizens have the right to freely express their views. Just like Vu, many lawyers have been arrested and imprisoned on political charges. They are lawyer [Nguyen Van] Dai, lawyer Le Thi Cong Nhan, lawyer Le Cong Dinh, lawyer Nguyen Bac Truyen, legal activist Phan Thanh Hai, lawyer Le Quoc Quan, lawyer Tran Thi Thuy Trang, and so on. Why so?

Because just like him, we all believe that law was made for people to follow in every act. Law is the foundation, the boundary line, the foundational column and the hamstring to keep us in order. But when we candidly “believe in the legal wording” and not vigilant in “observing the execution of law,” we can easily fall into danger. As lawyers, we believe that the prime minister is also a citizen like all others under law, and we have the right to sue him. We believe that the state is truly serious in the fight against corruption, hence lawyers spend time and effort to look for evidence and initiate activities for the common goal, but end up being arrested.

Many lawyers, just like brother Vu, because of their patriotism and enthusiasm to devote to the common cause, have registered as candidates for the election, thrown themselves into the dirt of life, suffered from countless burdens to build the fatherland with sincerity. But punishment is the outcome.

Under the current law of Vietnam, another important legal factor is that, according to the constituent elements of the crimes described in article 88, the target of brother Vu’s act is national security. As such, it is impossible to try him without proving that his acts caused harm to national security, which must be quantified. It is impossible to charge someone with stealing if no one lost anything. On the contrary, it is necessary to conduct an urgent investigation into the arrest of Vu, whether such an act caused any harm to national security? If yes, those who arrested him are the true offenders since they have “harmed the national security.”

Lastly, it is clear that this verdict is not for Vu as an individual, but a common verdict for all compatriots and for the entire nation of Vietnam. The judge’s decision on April 4 will go down in history as an honorable or shameful act, depending on the innocent or guilty verdict delivered to Vu.    

However, regardless of the verdict, in the history of our Vietnamese nation he is always the innocent Vu – or V, which stands for Vietnam and Victory!

Three days before the trial of Vu

Lawyer Le Quoc Quan