Saturday, 21 May 2011

Sodomy 2: Anwar Ibrahim called to enter his defence, is there no one in Pakatan with credibility and integrity to replace him?

On 16th May 2011, the Trial Judge in Anwar Ibrahim's second  sodomy trial found that there is a prima facie case in the Prosecution charge against the accused and ordered Anwar to enter his defence:

Anwar to enter defence

Judge says Saiful a ‘credible, truthful’ witness

What is troubling is the way that the Anwar trials are being portrayed by some news media with questionable intentions as a conspiracy by the BN Gomen against Anwar himself, this is from  the MI:

Notice that Anwar Ibrahim's three trials has been cleverly condensed into two namely Trial 1 and Trial 11. In their version of Trial 1 they lumped Anwar's charge for abuse of power and sodomy into one and conveniently wrote that Anwar's sentencing was overturned by the Supreme Court (Federal Court) when in fact there were two separate trials by different High Court Judges, let me explain:

1. Anwar went through a 77 day trial starting in November 1998 on four counts of Corruption (Abuse of power when he was then the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia). He was found guilty by Judge Augustin Paul in April 1999 and sentenced to 6 years in prison. On  final appeal, Malaysia's highest Court, the Federal Court comprising Court of Appeal President Datuk Abdul Malek Ahmad and Federal Court judges Datuk Siti Norma Yaakob and Datuk Alauddin Mohamed Sheriff unanimously upheld Anwar’s conviction on 20 July 2002. This meant that Anwar's had to serve his full sentence for corruption. He is therefore an ex-convict having being jailed for corruption/abuse of power. 

After the first trial:

2. In June 1999 Anwar went through another trial for committing sodomy with his then driver Azizan Abu Bakar. He was found guilty by Judge Ariffin Jaka and sentenced to 9 years in prison, however on final appeal at the Federal Court in a 2-1 majority decision Anwar's appeal was allowed based on a technicality, this are excerpts of the judgement which  allowed the Appeal:

"To summarise our judgment, even though reading the appeal record, we find evidence to confirm that the appellants were involved in homosexual activities and we are more inclined to believe that the alleged incident at Tivoli Villa did happen, sometime, this court, as a court of law, may only convict the appellants if the prosecution has successfully proved the alleged offences as stated in the charges, beyond reasonable doubt, on admissible evidence and in accordance with established principles of law. We may be convinced in our minds of the guilt or innocence of the appellants but our decision must only be based on the evidence adduced and nothing else. In this case Azizan’s evidence on the “date” of the incident is doubtful as he had given three different “dates” in three different years, the first two covering a period of one month
each and the last covering a period of three months. He being the only source for the “date”, his inconsistency, contradiction and demeanor when giving evidence on the issue does not make him a reliable source, as such, an essential part of the offence has not been proved by the prosecution. We also find the second appellant’s confession not admissible as it appears not to have been made voluntarily. Even if admissible the confession would not support the “date” of the commission of the offences charged. We have also found Azizan to be
an accomplice. Therefore corroborative evidence of a convincing, cogent and irresistable character is required. While the testimonies of Dr. Mohd. Fadzil and Tun Haniff and the conduct of the first appellant confirm the appellants’ involvement in homosexual activities, such evidence does not corroborate Azizan’s story that he was sodomised by both the appellants at the place, time and date specified in the charge. In the absence of any corroborative evidence it is unsafe to convict the appellants on the evidence of an accomplice alone unless his evidence is unusually convincing or for some reason is of special weight which we find it is not. Furthermore, the offence being a sexual offence, in the circumstances that we have mentioned, it is also unsafe to convict on the evidence of Azizan alone."

This is an excerpt of the dissenting judgement by Federal Court Judge Rahmah Hussain; 

"Overall there is no reason for me to disagree with the conclusion of the trial judge when he said this: (at pp. 444-445 [2001] 3 CLJ 313)

This brings me to the question whether the defence has raised a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case. I have carefully considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence as a whole. My conclusions are as follows:

1) it is my finding as a fact that the alibi of both the accused does not cover the whole of the period between January to March 1993 as stated in the charge. The alibi covered the period only from 4 February to 31
March 1993 and is therefore incomplete. The defence of alibi therefore fails; 

2) the defence that both the accused never went to Tivoli Villa at 7.45 pm between January to March 1993 also failed based on the evidence of Azizan which I accepted as truthful and reliable;

3) the defence of conspiracy to fabricate evidence has not been substantiated by admissible and cogent evidence adduced by the defence. This defence also failed; 

4) the voluntariness of Sukma’s confession (P4) is affirmed; 

5) the truth of P4 has been established as far as it relates to both the accused;

6) there was corroboration on the evidence of Azizan;

7) the credibility of Azizan is affirmed;

8) Sukma has not cast any doubt on the prosecution case of abetment against him. There is ample evidence adduced that he abetted Dato’ Seri Anwar in committing sodomy against Azizan;

9) It is my finding that the defence evidence on behalf of both the accused as a whole has not succeeded in creating any reasonable doubt on the case for the prosecution;

10) It is also my finding that the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt on the charges against both the accused.

 I accordingly found both Dato’ Seri Anwar and Sukma guilty on the charges against them. I accordingly convicted Dato’ Seri Anwar on the charge against him. I also accordingly convicted Sukma on the two charges against him. In the circumstances, and for the reasons hereinabove stated by me, I would therefore dismiss the appeals by both the appellants, against their convictions
on the charges preferred against them respectively."

Source: [2004] 3 CLJ Dato' Seri Anwar v. PP & Another Appeal -
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS: 05-6-2003 (W) & 05-7-2003 (W)] 2 SEPTEMBER 2004

As a layman in Law, I can only describe, Anwar's fortune in this appeal at the Federal Court as escaping by the skin of his teeth. However it must be observed that All the Federal Court Judges panel members agreed that he had been involved in homosexual activity.

Having completed his sentence for corruption and having his appeal for the sodomy sentencing allowed, Anwar Ibrahim was a free man on 2nd September 2004 the date of the Federal Court Judgement. 

I suppose what goes round comes round and a few years later Anwar had to undergo another trial for sodomy this time with a PKR party worker Saiful Buhari on 10 February 2010, a very very long trial where the Judge was asked to recuse himself twice before Anwar was called to enter his defence which he will have to do starting from 6 June 2011. 

I do not want to comment  much on the issue suffice to say that the  Prosecution seems to have a water tight case namely  a very credible witness, solid supporting DNA evidence, surveillance video camera to tell the time and track the persons involved and other credible prosecuting witnesses. I think the defence team will have their work cut out for them to explain how Anwar's DNA (DNA extracted from semen sample mind you) find itself in Saiful's rectum that's for sure. Calling the PM, his wife is a fruitless exercise in irrelevance.

So there you have it folks, there is not 2 trials that Anwar Ibrahim had to go through but actually 3 trials and notice that there is no conspiracy by the BN to get him. All the charges are personal charges, Anwar started it, he was not framed. 

Conspiracies only happen if someone is framed for doing something he did not do, but Anwar is involved in each and every charges against him, how could that be a conspiracy?

The next question is why  are there still people mainly PKR, DAP and PAS die-hards who wants a ex-convict jailed for abuse of power and also questionable sexual preference to lead them as Malaysia's Opposition Leader and to become Malaysia's Prime Minister if they win the PRU13? These character flaws could be accepted for ordinary people like us perhaps, but to be a leader of a  Sovereign Nation like Malaysia one must have very high standards of credibility and integrity and there are no exceptions.

I find it incredible that the Opposition Pakatan do not have even one  leader with better credibility and higher integrity who can replace Anwar Ibrahim? 

The Aussies, the Brits and the Americans has legitimised sodomy, but would they accept a male Prime Minister or President who has a history of sodomy with the same sex?  Certainly not. Would they accept a Prime Minister or President who has been convicted for corruption/abuse of power? Certainly not. Think about it Malaysians, we deserve better leaders.

It would be a very tragic day for Malaysia if Anwar Ibrahim gets to become Prime Minister, I pray to God Al-mighty that day will never come.

No comments: