In fact, argued the AG, since Azizan kept changing his story so many times and was very inconsistent, this proves he was telling the truth. If there was any attempt to fabricate charges against Anwar and Sukma, then there would not be any inconsistencies at all.
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Amendments to the charges were Bona Fide
The Attorney-General denied that the amendments to the charges against Anwar Ibrahim and his adopted brother, Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja, were Mala Fide as alleged by the Defence.
The original charge was that Anwar and Sukma had sodomised Azizan in May 1994. This was the charge drawn up on 29 September 1998.
Azizan then testified during the trial that he was sodomised from early 1992 to May 1992. So, on 27 April 1999, the charge was amended to May 1992.
Then, the defence filed a Notice of Alibi to prove that, in May 1992, the Tivoli Villa, the place of the alleged crime, was not ready yet. So, for the second time, the charge was amended, and this time to ‘one day at 7.45pm between 1 January 1993 and 31 March 1993’.
To this the AG replied that the first ‘mistake’ was a typographical error. The charge should actually have read ‘May 1992’ instead of ‘May 1994’. Then, when the defence filed their Notice of Alibi, and it was discovered that the Tivoli Villa was not completed yet, the Investigation Officer, SAC1 Musa Hassan, ‘re-interrogated’ Azizan and asked him to “remember correctly the date of the incident.”
And that was when Azizan, after ‘correctly remembering’, came out with the ‘correct date’ all on his own, without coerce or coaching from the police. The ‘correct date’ was entirely Azizan’s own initiative, explained the AG, and was not a date suggested by the police.
And that was when the charges against Anwar and Sukma were amended and were in no way fabricated or trumped-up charges.
In fact, argued the AG, since Azizan kept changing his story so many times and was very inconsistent, this proves he was telling the truth. If there was any attempt to fabricate charges against Anwar and Sukma, then there would not be any inconsistencies at all.
In short, because Azizan appears to be lying, then this is every reason to believe he is telling the truth, for a real liar would not change his story so many times. If Azizan’s story had been too perfect and without any flaws, added the AG, then this would be a strong reason to be suspicious.
Anyhow, added the AG, dates are important only in specific cases. In the case of Anwar’s and Sukma’s sodomy trial, dates are not that crucial.
“From time immemorial, dates have never been important in an indictment,” said the AG.
Azizan, because he was a good Muslim, exposed Anwar’s ‘crime’
Azizan said he had exposed Anwar’s sexual misconduct because he (Azizan) was a good Muslim. Subsequently, during the course of the trial, Azizan got arrested and convicted for close proximity, a crime no ‘good Muslim’ would commit.
The Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, in an interview, said the only reason Azizan was arrested was because the opposition was following him in an attempt to catch him doing something wrong.
Yes, that was why Azizan was arrested and sentenced to six months jail - because the opposition was trailing him to catch him with his pants down, not because he had committed a crime.
The defence then requested that Azizan be recalled as a witness so that his credibility as a ‘good Muslim’ can be reassessed. But the trial judge disallowed it.
“Azizan’s moral character has no relevance to the issue,” argued the AG.
“Just because Azizan was convicted for close proximity in a Syariah Court does not mean he is not of credible character. There is no reason to reject his evidence.”
“Azizan’s immoral character has no significance to the fact in issues in the charges against both the accused. The conviction in the Syariah Court does not affect his credibility.”
The IO Musa Hassan read medical books to come to his decision
On the point raised by the defence that they had asked for Azizan to be sent for a medical examination to determine whether he had indeed been sodomised, but that the prosecution had refused to do so, the AG had this to reply:
“The Investigation Officer, SAC1 Musa Hassan, had applied his past experience and relied on medical books when he decided not to send Azizan for a medical examination.”
“The trial judge considered this issue in relation to the issue of penetration and he held that medical examination was not the only method to prove penetration.”
So the policeman read a medical journal and played doctor while the judge ruled that the testimony of an inconsistent witness was better than a doctor’s expert testimony.
No comments:
Post a Comment