By Adib Zalkapli
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 16 — Kelantan will not hold Prophet Muhammad’s birthday procession this year despite criticisms by several Umno leaders who accused another Pakatan Rakyat state, Penang, as anti-Islam for allegedly planning to cancel the event.
Most Muslim nations celebrate the Prophet’s birthday with a procession after prayers. Saudi Arabia, which practices an austere form of Islam, does not celebrate the event.
“We are not organising any procession just like before, but of course there will be processions in mosques throughout the state, organised by the people to express their love for the Prophet,” said Kelantan Deputy Mentri Besar Datuk Ahmad Yaakob.
“Officially, there will be no government-sponsored procession, instead we will have a religious lecture at the Sultan Muhammad IV Stadium on Feb 25, followed by special prayers,” he told The Malaysian Insider.
Malay daily Utusan Malaysia last week reported that the Penang government was planning to cancel this year’s procession which invited criticisms from Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Badawi.
Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng later denied that the state was planning to cancel the procession, accusing the Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia as lying.
Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin then uploaded on his personal website, www.rembau.net a scanned copy of one letter that bore the letterhead of the state secretariat which showed that they had decided on Feb 5 to cancel the procession.
The Rembau MP also demanded explanation from Lim and asked the DAP secretary-general to verify the authenticity of the letter.
However the Penang government claimed that the scanned copies of such letters were merely new ideas outlined by government officials.
“The procession is not compulsory, Muslims can choose to do it or not, but most importantly they have to strictly adhere to the Prophet’s teachings,” said Ahmad.
“And it was never practiced during the Prophet’s time,” he added.
PAS vice-president Datuk Mahfuz Omar also questioned the sincerity of the Malay daily when it raised the matter.
“In Kedah, there has been no procession since the time Umno ruled the state, I did not hear Tun Abdullah Badawi questioning Datuk Seri Mahadzir Khalid’s move to cancel the procession,” said the Pokok Sena MP, adding that the procession is not compulsory in Islam.
The alleged cancellation of Prophet’s birthday procession in Penang is seen as a sensitive issue by some Malay groups.
In 1964, a racial riot broke out during the procession in the Chinese-majority Singapore, then part of Malaysia.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
FMT : Malaysia has 22 new billionaires
KUALA LUMPUR: Social, political and economic mayhem aside, a Malaysian Business survey has revealed 22 new billionaires in Malaysia as of Jan 15 – eight more than last year.
Among them are Datuk Seri Nazir Razak of CIMB Group, Lee Swee Eng of KNM Group, brothers Datuk Shahril Shamsuddin and Shahriman Shamsuddin of Sapura, and OSK Holdings’ Ong Leong Huat, who makes a comeback to the list after a one-year absence.
The survey revealed its list of Malaysia’s 40 richest people. The billionaires recorded an increase in their fortunes and are collectively worth RM156.7 billion on Jan 15, or 63 per cent more than their worth (RM96.3 billion) a year ago, on the back of a recovery in the stock market.
However, according to the fortnightly magazine’s survey results released in a statement today, their combined wealth was still less than the RM171.9 billion recorded in 2008.
The benchmark FBM KLCI has risen 44.3 per cent since its last survey as the world strives to get back on its feet following the global financial crisis.
The full list of the 40 tycoons and details of their wealth were published in the magazine’s Feb 16 issue. As in the previous year, the wealth of the Top 40 was determined from the value of their stakes in listed companies as of Jan 15.
The survey also revealed that close to half on this year’s list recorded jumps of 50 per cent or more.
Tan Sri Robert Kuok, the Kuok Group patriarch who relinquished his “Sugar King” crown last year, still tops the list with a wealth of RM42.76 billion, up RM16.1 billion from RM26.6 billion a year ago.
Media-shy and telecommunication tycoon Ananda Krishnan ranked second, clocking in at RM27 billion.
IOI Corporation Bhd’s Tan Sri Lee Shin Chen was third with a wealth of RM11.92 billion, followed by prominent banker Tan Sri Teh Hong Piow at RM10.86 billion.
Genting Group’s Tan Sri Lim Kok Thay, valued at RM10.38 billion, leapt a full 10 spots to five. This was because he assumed a large chunk of the wealth of his late father, Tan Sri Lim Goh Tong.
Hong Leong Group’s Tan Sri Quek Leng Chan took the sixth spot at RM7.09 billion while Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Albukhary of the Albukhary Foundation, valued at RM6.01 billion, settled at seventh.
Others in the Top-10 ranking were Lim Goh Tong’s widow Puan Sri Lee Kim Hua, Tan Sri Tiong Hiew King of Rimbunan Hijau Group and Tan Sri Vincent Tan of Berjaya Group. — Bernama
Among them are Datuk Seri Nazir Razak of CIMB Group, Lee Swee Eng of KNM Group, brothers Datuk Shahril Shamsuddin and Shahriman Shamsuddin of Sapura, and OSK Holdings’ Ong Leong Huat, who makes a comeback to the list after a one-year absence.
The survey revealed its list of Malaysia’s 40 richest people. The billionaires recorded an increase in their fortunes and are collectively worth RM156.7 billion on Jan 15, or 63 per cent more than their worth (RM96.3 billion) a year ago, on the back of a recovery in the stock market.
However, according to the fortnightly magazine’s survey results released in a statement today, their combined wealth was still less than the RM171.9 billion recorded in 2008.
The benchmark FBM KLCI has risen 44.3 per cent since its last survey as the world strives to get back on its feet following the global financial crisis.
The full list of the 40 tycoons and details of their wealth were published in the magazine’s Feb 16 issue. As in the previous year, the wealth of the Top 40 was determined from the value of their stakes in listed companies as of Jan 15.
The survey also revealed that close to half on this year’s list recorded jumps of 50 per cent or more.
Tan Sri Robert Kuok, the Kuok Group patriarch who relinquished his “Sugar King” crown last year, still tops the list with a wealth of RM42.76 billion, up RM16.1 billion from RM26.6 billion a year ago.
Media-shy and telecommunication tycoon Ananda Krishnan ranked second, clocking in at RM27 billion.
IOI Corporation Bhd’s Tan Sri Lee Shin Chen was third with a wealth of RM11.92 billion, followed by prominent banker Tan Sri Teh Hong Piow at RM10.86 billion.
Genting Group’s Tan Sri Lim Kok Thay, valued at RM10.38 billion, leapt a full 10 spots to five. This was because he assumed a large chunk of the wealth of his late father, Tan Sri Lim Goh Tong.
Hong Leong Group’s Tan Sri Quek Leng Chan took the sixth spot at RM7.09 billion while Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Albukhary of the Albukhary Foundation, valued at RM6.01 billion, settled at seventh.
Others in the Top-10 ranking were Lim Goh Tong’s widow Puan Sri Lee Kim Hua, Tan Sri Tiong Hiew King of Rimbunan Hijau Group and Tan Sri Vincent Tan of Berjaya Group. — Bernama
‘I’m sorry I made a mistake,’ Anwar says
(The Star) - PKR adviser and Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim apologised for his choice of candidates in the 2008 general election.
Anwar said he was responsible for selecting the MP candidates and had made “some mistakes” by choosing “shaky and unclean” candidates.
“I feel sad that I asked you to vote for these people - I apologise. Now I have been stabbed in the back,” he said during the state PKR’s Chinese New Year open house here Tuesday.
PKR’s Bayan Baru MP and Anwar’s personal friend, Datuk Seri Zahrain Hashim, quit the party on Friday, triggering talk of an exodus by PKR lawmakers.
Zahrain’s ally, Nibong Tebal MP Tan Tee Beng, who is facing disciplinary action from the party, said he would only decide on his future after Chinese New Year.
“We enter politics not to get a Datukship or to ask for contracts, shares and land - you don’t join politics to become rich,” Anwar said.
Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, who was present at the event, has alleged that Zahrain’s departure from Pakatan was prompted by his rejection of the latter’s proposal for the Bukit Jambul Country Club (BJCC) to be outsourced and awarded to “a RM2 company”.
Lim also denied that Pakatan was a “brittle” coalition. “Just because one or two run does not mean that we are brittle.
“To those who have left, ‘selamat meninggal’ and to those who are physically still in Pakatan but are not with us in spirit, we leave it up to them what to do - we will still be alright,” he said.
He also hit out at Zahrain for not being a “true friend” to Anwar.
“If he is a truly a friend, why did he choose this moment to act up - when Anwar is facing a trial?
“He can leave - we don’t care,” he said.
A billboard in Zahrain’s constituency, put up by Pantai Jerejak PKR assemblyman Sim Tze Tzin about a week ago, has been vandalised with a large, red X spray painted over Zahrain face.
The board, that is located at the Jalan Tengah - Jalan Mayang Pasir intersection, is one of two PKR billboards in the Bayan Baru parliamentary area that have been put up to wish motorists a happy Chinese New Year.
A check at the other board, located at the Jalan Tun Dr Awang entrance of the Bayan Baru roundabout, Tuesday afternoon showed that it was still untouched.
When asked about the vandalism, Sim said he had only found out about it Tuesday and denounced the act.
“Many people are angry at Zahrain (for jumping ship) but this is not the right way to express their feelings. Instead, we should focus on turning this anger into votes,” Sim said when met at the state-level PKR open house in Rifle Range.
Zahrain quit PKR on Feb 12, citing, among other reasons, dissatisfaction with Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Engs leadership of the state.
Sim added that he would take down the affected board this week, earlier than after the full Chinese New Year festivities as previously scheduled.
Anwar said he was responsible for selecting the MP candidates and had made “some mistakes” by choosing “shaky and unclean” candidates.
“I feel sad that I asked you to vote for these people - I apologise. Now I have been stabbed in the back,” he said during the state PKR’s Chinese New Year open house here Tuesday.
PKR’s Bayan Baru MP and Anwar’s personal friend, Datuk Seri Zahrain Hashim, quit the party on Friday, triggering talk of an exodus by PKR lawmakers.
Zahrain’s ally, Nibong Tebal MP Tan Tee Beng, who is facing disciplinary action from the party, said he would only decide on his future after Chinese New Year.
“We enter politics not to get a Datukship or to ask for contracts, shares and land - you don’t join politics to become rich,” Anwar said.
Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, who was present at the event, has alleged that Zahrain’s departure from Pakatan was prompted by his rejection of the latter’s proposal for the Bukit Jambul Country Club (BJCC) to be outsourced and awarded to “a RM2 company”.
Lim also denied that Pakatan was a “brittle” coalition. “Just because one or two run does not mean that we are brittle.
“To those who have left, ‘selamat meninggal’ and to those who are physically still in Pakatan but are not with us in spirit, we leave it up to them what to do - we will still be alright,” he said.
He also hit out at Zahrain for not being a “true friend” to Anwar.
“If he is a truly a friend, why did he choose this moment to act up - when Anwar is facing a trial?
“He can leave - we don’t care,” he said.
A billboard in Zahrain’s constituency, put up by Pantai Jerejak PKR assemblyman Sim Tze Tzin about a week ago, has been vandalised with a large, red X spray painted over Zahrain face.
The board, that is located at the Jalan Tengah - Jalan Mayang Pasir intersection, is one of two PKR billboards in the Bayan Baru parliamentary area that have been put up to wish motorists a happy Chinese New Year.
A check at the other board, located at the Jalan Tun Dr Awang entrance of the Bayan Baru roundabout, Tuesday afternoon showed that it was still untouched.
When asked about the vandalism, Sim said he had only found out about it Tuesday and denounced the act.
“Many people are angry at Zahrain (for jumping ship) but this is not the right way to express their feelings. Instead, we should focus on turning this anger into votes,” Sim said when met at the state-level PKR open house in Rifle Range.
Zahrain quit PKR on Feb 12, citing, among other reasons, dissatisfaction with Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Engs leadership of the state.
Sim added that he would take down the affected board this week, earlier than after the full Chinese New Year festivities as previously scheduled.
MK : Anwar lantik tiga pakar DNA, forensik asing
Pasukan peguam perbicaraan kes liwat Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim hari ini mengumumkan pelantikan tiga pakar asing dalam bidang DNA dan forensik untuk membantu mereka dalam kes tersebut.
Dalam satu kenyataan, peguam Anwar, Sankara Nair berkata beliau akan membawa tiga pakar tersebut ke Mahkamah tinggi Kuala Lumpur esok.
Mereka ialah pakar DNA, Dr Brian Mc Donald dari Sydney Australia, dan pakar forensik - Dr C Damodaran, dari Chennai, India, Dr David Wells dari Melbourne, Australia.
Esok ialah keputusan terhadap permohonan Anwar supaya Hakim yang sedang mendengar kesnya - Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Dian - menarik diri.
Manakala Mahkamah Rayuan pula telah menetapkan hari ini untuk memutuskan rayuan ketua umum PKR itu terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi menolak permohonannya untuk membatalkan tuduhan liwat terhadapnya.
Sejak beberapa hari lalu, Malaysia berdepan dengan tekanan dari ahli parlimen Australia yang mendesak supaya digugurkan tuduhan liwat terhadap Anwar.
Pada masa yang sama, ahli parlimen Amerika pula mendesak Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak supaya memastikan perbicaraan kes Anwar berjalan secara adil.
Dr Mc Donald adalah seorang ahli patologi dari Universiti Western Australia. Beliau juga merupakan pengarah DNA Consults.
Beliau dipanggil untuk menyediakan Kepakarannya dalam bidang DNA yang dijangka dikemukakan dalam perbicaraan nanti.
Dr Damodaran pula mempunyai 28 tahun pengalaman dalam bidang forensik dan pengalaman mengajar, di samping 36 tahun pengalaman dalam bio-kimia, toksilogi dan forensik.
Sementara itu, Dr Wells merupakan prof madya dalam bidang jenayah di Universiti Melbourne.
Beliau kini merupakan ketua bahagian Perubatan Klinikal Forensik, Institut Perubatan Forensik Victoria.Anwar, 63, dituduh meliwat bekas pembantunya, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan 24, di Unit 11-5-1, Kondominium Desa Damansara, Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara, di antara pukul 3.01 petang dan 4.30 petang 26 Jun 2008.
Ketua pembangkang dan ahli parlimen Permatang Pauh itu, dituduh mengikut Seksyen 377B Kanun Keseksaan dan boleh dihukum penjara sehingga 20 tahun dan disebat jika disabit kesalahan.
 |
Mereka ialah pakar DNA, Dr Brian Mc Donald dari Sydney Australia, dan pakar forensik - Dr C Damodaran, dari Chennai, India, Dr David Wells dari Melbourne, Australia.
Esok ialah keputusan terhadap permohonan Anwar supaya Hakim yang sedang mendengar kesnya - Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Dian - menarik diri.
Manakala Mahkamah Rayuan pula telah menetapkan hari ini untuk memutuskan rayuan ketua umum PKR itu terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi menolak permohonannya untuk membatalkan tuduhan liwat terhadapnya.
Sejak beberapa hari lalu, Malaysia berdepan dengan tekanan dari ahli parlimen Australia yang mendesak supaya digugurkan tuduhan liwat terhadap Anwar.
Pada masa yang sama, ahli parlimen Amerika pula mendesak Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak supaya memastikan perbicaraan kes Anwar berjalan secara adil.
Dr Mc Donald adalah seorang ahli patologi dari Universiti Western Australia. Beliau juga merupakan pengarah DNA Consults.
Beliau dipanggil untuk menyediakan Kepakarannya dalam bidang DNA yang dijangka dikemukakan dalam perbicaraan nanti.
Dr Damodaran pula mempunyai 28 tahun pengalaman dalam bidang forensik dan pengalaman mengajar, di samping 36 tahun pengalaman dalam bio-kimia, toksilogi dan forensik.
Sementara itu, Dr Wells merupakan prof madya dalam bidang jenayah di Universiti Melbourne.
Beliau kini merupakan ketua bahagian Perubatan Klinikal Forensik, Institut Perubatan Forensik Victoria.Anwar, 63, dituduh meliwat bekas pembantunya, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan 24, di Unit 11-5-1, Kondominium Desa Damansara, Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara, di antara pukul 3.01 petang dan 4.30 petang 26 Jun 2008.
Ketua pembangkang dan ahli parlimen Permatang Pauh itu, dituduh mengikut Seksyen 377B Kanun Keseksaan dan boleh dihukum penjara sehingga 20 tahun dan disebat jika disabit kesalahan.
MK : Anwar gagal dalam rayuan batalkan tuduhan liwat
Ketua umum PKR, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim gagal dalam rayuannya di Mahkamah Rayuan untuk membatalkan tuduhan liwat terhadapnya.
Hakim Datuk Wira Abu Samah Nordin berkata tiada kes untuk mahkamah itu membenarkan rayuan tersebut.
Beliau juga memutuskan bahawa laporan perubatan hanyalah untuk menyokong kerana ia juga perlu disokong oleh keterangan lisan, forensik dan bukannya semata-mata laporan itu sahaja.
Hakim Abu Samah juga berkata, mahkamah berpendapat Anwar gagal membuktikan bahawa pertuduhan atau pendakwaan terhadap beliau bersifat tidak adil dan satu menyalahgunaan proses mahkamah.
Panel tiga hakim Mahkamah Rayuan itu sebulat suara menolak rayuan ketua umum PKR itu. Dua lagi hakim ialah Datuk Sulaiman Daud dan Datuk Azhar Ma'ah.
Oleh itu, kata Hakim Abu Samah, perbicaraan kes liwat terhadap Anwar hendaklah diteruskan.
Mahkamah juga menolak permohonan lisan peguam Karpal Singh yang mewakili Anwar untuk menangguhkan perbicaraan kes tersebut, sementara menunggu rayuan di Mahkamah Persekutuan.
Anwar, 63, dituduh meliwat bekas pembantunya, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan 24, di Unit 11-5-1, Kondominium Desa Damansara, Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara, di antara pukul 3.01 petang dan 4.30 petang 26 Jun 2008.
Ketua pembangkang dan ahli parlimen Permatang Pauh itu, dituduh mengikut Seksyen 377B Kanun Keseksaan dan boleh dihukum penjara sehingga 20 tahun dan disebat jika disabit kesalahan.
Perbicaraan kes itu ditangguhkan sehingga esok bagi menunggu keputusan hakim sama ada akan menarik diri ekoran dakwaan pihak pembelaan kononnya beliau berat sebelah.
Sehingga ini, Mohd Saiful menjadi saksi pertama dipanggil memberi keterangan.
Hakim Datuk Wira Abu Samah Nordin berkata tiada kes untuk mahkamah itu membenarkan rayuan tersebut.
Beliau juga memutuskan bahawa laporan perubatan hanyalah untuk menyokong kerana ia juga perlu disokong oleh keterangan lisan, forensik dan bukannya semata-mata laporan itu sahaja.
Hakim Abu Samah juga berkata, mahkamah berpendapat Anwar gagal membuktikan bahawa pertuduhan atau pendakwaan terhadap beliau bersifat tidak adil dan satu menyalahgunaan proses mahkamah.
Panel tiga hakim Mahkamah Rayuan itu sebulat suara menolak rayuan ketua umum PKR itu. Dua lagi hakim ialah Datuk Sulaiman Daud dan Datuk Azhar Ma'ah.
Oleh itu, kata Hakim Abu Samah, perbicaraan kes liwat terhadap Anwar hendaklah diteruskan.
Mahkamah juga menolak permohonan lisan peguam Karpal Singh yang mewakili Anwar untuk menangguhkan perbicaraan kes tersebut, sementara menunggu rayuan di Mahkamah Persekutuan.
Anwar, 63, dituduh meliwat bekas pembantunya, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan 24, di Unit 11-5-1, Kondominium Desa Damansara, Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara, di antara pukul 3.01 petang dan 4.30 petang 26 Jun 2008.
Ketua pembangkang dan ahli parlimen Permatang Pauh itu, dituduh mengikut Seksyen 377B Kanun Keseksaan dan boleh dihukum penjara sehingga 20 tahun dan disebat jika disabit kesalahan.
Perbicaraan kes itu ditangguhkan sehingga esok bagi menunggu keputusan hakim sama ada akan menarik diri ekoran dakwaan pihak pembelaan kononnya beliau berat sebelah.
Sehingga ini, Mohd Saiful menjadi saksi pertama dipanggil memberi keterangan.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Where is Azizan & Umi Hafilda, the main actors of sodomy I?
Can anybody please answer the above question?
In Sodomy I about ten years ago, Azizan was not consistent during the Q&A session in court. He keeps changing the event date when Anwar managed to provide his alibi on the all 3 months within the first suggested date. But the judge still accepted Azizan as a credible witness. The trial was a circus but it is not known to all Malaysians as the circus was not published in the mainstream media.
I was once puzzled too whether Anwar is telling the truth that this is all a big damn dirty conspiracy. So I made my own research. Read all the articles about the trial, especially those that was not in the main stream media. Reading the trial script, the Q&A, the lawyer's questions, the witnesses answers and also the judge response really make me clear in who is right and who is not. Don't trust the papers as they only summarize the whole daily trial and print out only favoured portion of trial scripts. Read the full original scripts which may be up to 300 question per day. But it is really worth reading it.
I am sure if the real trial script is made available to public. The government will be a dead meat. All the lies and trick will surface.
What if... we bring Azizan and Umi Hafilda as a witness to testify in the Sodomy II ongoing trial. Surely it will be fun for all, and then we will know who is the stage manager for the Sodomy I circus show. If they can tell in the name of Allah that it was a conspiracy then I think it will be a new episode for all.
I wonder what has happen to Umi Hafilda, never heard of her since Sodomy I ends. Maybe you should also read her late father's letter to Harakahdaily expressing his disappoinment in Umi Hafilda's behaviour just because of money. His family was really torn apart after the event. Yeah... you are right Umi Hafilda... yes the sister of the famous Azwan Ali. Not hard to find him right?
By the, ask yourself this question too... why are they denying Anwar's team to the eveidence that they claimed they have. The United Nation law says that both lawyer teams must have access to the same documents and evidence before the trial starts. This will ensure fair trial for all. Justice must be fair right? If it is not fair then there is no justice. Why are they too scared to hand over the documents if Anwar is really guilty unless their evidence/documents are not strong or just created rubbish for another conspiracy. They MUST also provide the list of witnesses before the trial starts but till today they have not and jude allows the trial to start without Anwar's lawyer having the right info to make the right preparations.
Berani kerana benar takut kerana salah... Takut hilang pangkat, darjat dan harta tapi tak takutkan Allah kerana tak menjalankan amanahNya. Tugas yang dipikul oleh hakim adalah amanah Allah kepadanya. Jika seluruh umat manusia berpegang kepada ajaran agama masing-masing bumi Malaysia akan menjadi bumi yang paling aman di dunia! Ingatlah jika Allah hendak mengambil semula nikmat kurniaanNya, tidak ada seorang makhluk didunia ini pun yang mampu menghalangnya!
The articale below by RPK is a MUST READ item!!!
********************************************************************************
Ummi confesses to being the architect behind the Anwar sodomy allegation; a purely fabricated charge
During the earlier trial, it was revealed that the Special Branch tried to convince Anwar to “take action” but that Anwar refused, until pressed further by the Director who said it was “for the sake of national security” before Anwar agreed that action be taken.
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
In a new twist to the Anwar Saga, it was revealed that Ummi Hafilda Ali was the architect behind the accusation that Anwar had sodomised Azizan Abu Bakar. And, for this, she was disowned by her father just months before he died of a broken heart.
Christopher Fernando told the Kuala Lumpur Appeal Court that Said Awang, the Director of the Special Branch, went to meet Azmin Ali, Ummi’s brother, who was then Anwar’s Chief Private Secretary, to solicit his (Azmin’s) assistance to persuade Ummi to retract the allegation that Anwar had sodomised Azizan.
What is most interesting by this revelation is that:
1. Said Awang went to meet Azmin BEFORE he met Anwar. Therefore, the allegation that Anwar had abused his position by summoning the Special Branch, and that he asked them to force Ummi and Azizan to withdraw the sodomy allegation, is a fallacy. In fact, it was not Anwar who summoned Said Awang to see him, but the Special Branch Director who took the initiative to meet Anwar.
2. The idea to persuade Ummi and Azizan to retract the sodomy allegation came from the Special Branch and not Anwar. During the earlier trial, it was revealed that the Special Branch tried to convince Anwar to “take action” but that Anwar refused, until pressed further by the Director who said it was “for the sake of national security” before Anwar agreed that action be taken.
3. The Special Branch was fully aware that it was Ummi who was behind the sodomy allegation and that Azizan was merely the instrument to the whole thing. That was why they wanted Azmin, her brother, to try to persuade Ummi to retract the allegation.
This sheds light on the previous day’s proceedings where Fernando revealed that Azizan testified three times, under oath, that Anwar never sodomised him – an admission that took even the trial judge aback.
Fernando related how Said went to meet Azmin to request a meeting with Anwar Ibrahim. In the meeting with Azmin, Said asked him whether Ummi is his sister and Azmin confirmed so.
Said Awang then asked Azmin whether he was able to persuade his sister to withdraw the sodomy allegation against Anwar but Azmin replied that would be impossible as he no longer talked to his sister since the allegation surfaced.
The Special Branch was aware that Ummi was behind the accusation and was, in fact, the plotter of the whole thing. And, the period when this discussion with Azmin was going on, the Special Branch had not met Anwar yet.
Azmin then called the family together to discuss the issue. In all, three meetings were held that included Ummi herself.
Ummi at first denied she had written the letter to the Prime Minister accusing Anwar of sodomy. Azmin then advised his sister to steer clear of the conspiracy, and that was when she admitted this would be impossible to do as she had been promised money and contracts for her role and, in fact, money had already changed hands.
Ummi later confessed to her father her involvement in the conspiracy and that it was actually she who had written the letter to the Prime Minister. The father, a religious teacher, then disowned her and, soon after, died of a broken heart, never forgiving his daughter for what she had done.
It was clear, from the testimony in court, that Azizan’s letter to the Prime Minister had been written by Ummi. Ummi had confessed to this. Azizan, in turn, during the course of the trial, admitted that Anwar did not sodomise him.
However, when the defence tried to bring up this very crucial bit of evidence during the trial, the trial judge disallowed it. The judge refused to allow the letter to be admitted as evidence or to allow Ummi to be called to court to testify.
Ummi’s role in this whole thing was clear and indisputable. The fact the sodomy accusation against Anwar was false was apparent. Just before he died, Ummi’s father wrote an open letter to Harakah, an opposition newspaper, explaining the whole matter and, in no uncertain terms, accused his daughter of involvement in the conspiracy to frame Anwar and of being the person who wrote the letter to the Prime Minister.
Had the judge allowed this crucial bit of evidence to be admitted, argued Fernando, it would have changed the entire complexion of the case and the judge would have been hard-pressed to find Anwar guilty.
Attempt after attempt was made to frame Anwar of sexual misconduct charges; and Pak Lah is involved too
“There was an evil plot to secure a conviction through devious means,” said Christopher Fernando on the second day of Anwar’s appeal hearing in the Kuala Lumpur Appeal Court.
Fernando then told the court that attempt after attempt was made to frame Anwar on sexual misconduct charges.
One such case was Dr. Munawar Ahmad Anees, then one of Anwar’s speech writers, who was arrested and subjected to physical and mental torture to force him to admit he had a homosexual relationship with Anwar.
Fernando then took the court through the lengthy Affidavit signed by Dr Munawar on 7 November 1998 that detailed the experience he went through at the hands of the Malaysian police.
The torture he endured finally broke him and he admitted to the ‘crime’, which he later retracted in his Affidavit.
Fernando then brought the court’s attention back to the Manjeet Singh Dhillon matter that was raised in court yesterday to emphasis his point of yet another attempt to frame Anwar.
At this point, Fernando called upon the court to recommend a Royal Commission of Inquiry be established to investigate Manjit Singh Dhillon's serious allegation against Abdul Gani Patail and Azhar Mohamad as this is a most serious matter affecting the administration of justice and the rule of law.
"If they are found not to be involved in extorting fabricated evidence, then their names will be cleared," said Fernando. "It will be to their benefit."
"If they are involved, then they ought to be brought to justice. That is the only way to resolve this pressing problem and to restore public confidence."
Clearly there was a concerted effort to frame Anwar. But these attempts were not confined to Malaysia. It also extended to the shores of the US as well, argued Fernando. One case in point was an incident involving Jamal Abder Rahman.
“We are trying to show a pattern, how witnesses were approached to give fabricated evidence and these efforts extended beyond the shores of Malaysia to the US,” said Fernando.
Jamal is an American citizen of Arab descent who operates a limousine service in Washington DC and had a contract to provide limousine services to the Malaysian Embassy in Washington.
In September 1998, soon after Anwar’s dismissal and subsequent arrest, a Malaysian Diplomat, Mustapha Ong, asked Jamal to declare that he had procured women and young boys for Anwar.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
SPRM tutup kes Khalid Ibrahim, Ali Rustam
Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) telah menutup siasatan lapan kes berprofil tinggi termasuk kes lembu korban yang membabitkan Menteri Besar Selangor, Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim dan kes politik wang membabitkan Ketua Menteri Melaka, Datuk Seri Mohd Ali Rustam.
Sebelum ini, Mohd Ali disiasat mengenai dakwaan mengamalkan politik wang bagi bertanding jawatan timbalan presiden Umno dalam pemilihan parti tahun lalu.
Abdul Khalid pula disiasat mengenai penyalahgunaan dana kerajaan egeri untuk membeli 46 ekor lembu korban bagi bahagian Parlimen Bandar Tun Razak.
Kes-kes lain yang ditutup termasuk siasatan terhadap timbalan menteri di jabatan perdana menteri, Datuk T Murugiah; kes bekas speaker DUN Perak, V Sivakumar; kes bekas timbalan ketua menteri Pulau Pinang, Mohammad Fairus Khairuddin; kes dakwaan salahguna kuasa dan peruntukan ADUN Jawi Tan Beng Huat; kes ADUN Batu Tiga, Selangor Rodziah Ismail serta dua anggota Majlis Pimpinan Pusat PKR yang didakwa cuba merasuah calon bebas DUN Penanti, Pulau Pinang Aminah Abdullah.
Perkara itu dinyatakan oleh Timbalan Ketua Pesuruhjaya SPRM (Operasi), Datuk Shukri Abdull dalam satu sidang akhbar di pejabatnya di Putrajaya hari ini.
Menurutnya, kes-kes tersebut selesai disiasat dan dimajukan kepada tmbalan pendakwaraya, tetapi diputuskan tiada pendakwaan akan dibuat.
Bagaimanapun, katanya, ia tidak bermakna kes-kes tersebut bebas daripada kegiatan rasuah, kerana kekurangan saksi dan bukti juga boleh menyebabkan SPRM gagal membina sebuah kes yang kukuh.
"Bukti yang ada mesti mencapai 90 peratus baru pihak
pendakwaan boleh membuat keputusan untuk mendakwa," katanya.
Menurut Shukri lagi, bukan semua kes-kes yang tidak dituduh itu tidak berlaku rasuah, tetapi sesetengahnya tak mencapai tahap yang ditetapkan dan banyak kelemahan-kelemahan wujud.
Oleh itu, katanya, timbalan pendakwaraya membuat keputusan bahawa tak boleh dituduh di ahkamah.
Shukri juga berkata, ia telah dirujuk dan dijelaskan kepada panel penilaian operasi, mengapa kes-kes itu tidak boleh dituduh di mahkamah.
Panel tujuh orang, kata Shukri, berpuas hati dengan penjelasan dari pihak SPRM ataupun bahagian perundangan dan pendakwaan.
Sebelum ini, Mohd Ali disiasat mengenai dakwaan mengamalkan politik wang bagi bertanding jawatan timbalan presiden Umno dalam pemilihan parti tahun lalu.
Abdul Khalid pula disiasat mengenai penyalahgunaan dana kerajaan egeri untuk membeli 46 ekor lembu korban bagi bahagian Parlimen Bandar Tun Razak.
Kes-kes lain yang ditutup termasuk siasatan terhadap timbalan menteri di jabatan perdana menteri, Datuk T Murugiah; kes bekas speaker DUN Perak, V Sivakumar; kes bekas timbalan ketua menteri Pulau Pinang, Mohammad Fairus Khairuddin; kes dakwaan salahguna kuasa dan peruntukan ADUN Jawi Tan Beng Huat; kes ADUN Batu Tiga, Selangor Rodziah Ismail serta dua anggota Majlis Pimpinan Pusat PKR yang didakwa cuba merasuah calon bebas DUN Penanti, Pulau Pinang Aminah Abdullah.
Perkara itu dinyatakan oleh Timbalan Ketua Pesuruhjaya SPRM (Operasi), Datuk Shukri Abdull dalam satu sidang akhbar di pejabatnya di Putrajaya hari ini.
Menurutnya, kes-kes tersebut selesai disiasat dan dimajukan kepada tmbalan pendakwaraya, tetapi diputuskan tiada pendakwaan akan dibuat.
Bagaimanapun, katanya, ia tidak bermakna kes-kes tersebut bebas daripada kegiatan rasuah, kerana kekurangan saksi dan bukti juga boleh menyebabkan SPRM gagal membina sebuah kes yang kukuh.
"Bukti yang ada mesti mencapai 90 peratus baru pihak
pendakwaan boleh membuat keputusan untuk mendakwa," katanya.
Menurut Shukri lagi, bukan semua kes-kes yang tidak dituduh itu tidak berlaku rasuah, tetapi sesetengahnya tak mencapai tahap yang ditetapkan dan banyak kelemahan-kelemahan wujud.
Oleh itu, katanya, timbalan pendakwaraya membuat keputusan bahawa tak boleh dituduh di ahkamah.
Shukri juga berkata, ia telah dirujuk dan dijelaskan kepada panel penilaian operasi, mengapa kes-kes itu tidak boleh dituduh di mahkamah.
Panel tujuh orang, kata Shukri, berpuas hati dengan penjelasan dari pihak SPRM ataupun bahagian perundangan dan pendakwaan.
Dedah para hakim yang menyeleweng
Bahagian Akhir
Oleh N H Chan
Walaupun Perlembagaan British tidak bertulis, tetapi terdapat peruntukan yang hampir sama dengan perlembagaan kita, disebut hak keistimewaan Parlimen. Lord Denning, pada muka surat 192 dalam ‘The Family Story’ menyebut begini:
Dewan Parlimen memiliki beberapa hak keistimewaan. Salah satunya ialah kebebasan bersuara. Erskine May berkata, "apa yang disebut atau dilakukan di dewan Parlimen tidak boleh di persoal di mahkamah undang-undang."
Bil mengenai Hak-Hak 1688 berkata, "kebebasan bersuara dan perdebatan atau prosiding dalam Parlimen, tidak boleh ditarik atau dipersoal dalam mana-mana mahkamah atau dikeluarkan dari Parlimen."
Lord Denning sendiri tidak boleh mempertikai hal ini. Kes ini dilaporkan dalam "Laporan-Laporan Undang-Undang – Akta Hak Istimewa Parlimen 1770 (1958) AC 331". Beliau menyebutnya pada muka surat 193 ‘The Family Story’:
Pada 8 Februari 1957, Encik Strauss MP menulis sepucuk surat – kertas "House of Common" – kepada Encik Maudling. Beliau mengadu tentang sikap Lembaga Elektrik London.
Katanya, mereka hendak menjual kabel terpakai pada harga yang terlalu rendah dan perbuatan mereka itu merupakan satu skandal. Encik Maudling menyalurkan aduan itu kepada Lembaga Elektrik London.
Pada 4 Mac 1957, peguam Lembaga tersebut menulis surat kepada Encik Strauss mengancam untuk memfailkan saman. Surat yang nampaknya mudah itu menimbulkan isu perlembagaan yang serius. Siapa yang lebih berkuasa? Parlimen atau mahkamah-mahkamah undang-undang?
Encik Strauss berkata, surat itu (ugut saman) melanggar hak istimewa Parlimen dan Lembaga itu serta peguamnya boleh dijatuhi hukuman oleh ‘House of Common".
Lembaga itu menyatakan mereka berhak untuk mendapatkan ganti rugi dari mahkamah-mahkamah undang-undang. "House of Common" tidak boleh menghalang mereka.
Isu ini kemudian dirujuk kepada Majlis Privy. Tujuh hakim mendengar kes ini. Saya adalah salah seorang daripadanya. Saya dapati saya berada dalam golongan minoriti kerana saya seorang sahaja.
Keenam-enam mereka memutuskan bahawa ‘House of Common’ boleh menerima writ saman itu terhadap seorang Ahli Parlimen – berdasarkan ucapan atau prosiding di Parlimen – sebagai melanggar hak-hak istimewanya.
Penentangan atau hujah Lord Denning ialah setiap orang Inggeris mempunyai hak untuk mendapat pembelaan di mahkamah-mahkamah undang-undang.
Selepas itu, Encik Strauss dalam pembelaannya boleh membuat rayuan pembelaan hak-hak istimewa Parlimen sebagai "prosiding dalam Parlimen" dalam lingkungan Bil mengenai Hak-Hak.
Pendapat Lord Denning dilihat tidak bercanggah pada kaca mata Majlis Privy. Pada masa dahulu, pendapat yang bersifat menentang tidak boleh dibenarkan. Dari satu segi, Lord Denning adalah betul.
Tidak ada sesiapa pun boleh dihalang dari mendapatkan pembelaan di mahkamah undang-undang.
Tetapi dalam kes yang menjadi persoalan ini, isu ini dirujuk kepada Majlis Privy bagi mendapatkan pandangannya. Perbuatan ini telah mendahului tindakan writ saman. Jika sekiranya isu ini diputuskan oleh mahkamah undang-undang, hak istimewa Parlimen masih merupakan satu langkah pembelaan yang lengkap.
Memandangkan anda kini telah dapat memahami undang-undang, anda akan akui bahawa terdapatnya pemisahan kuasa-kuasa di antara eksekutif kerajaan dan badan kehakiman.
Anda juga tahu makna sebenar kebebasan para hakim. Anda juga pasti bahawa pemisahan di antara kuasa eksekutif dan kuasa kehakiman adalah sesuatu yang benar. Ia bukan mitos. Ia adalah undang-undang negara ini.
Hanya para hakim yang terlibat dalam membuat keputusan-keputusan dalam menangani krisis Perak baru-baru ini yang memilih untuk mengelirukan orang awam kerana enggan melaksanakan undang-undang seperti mana yang termaktub.
Tetapi kepada para hakim yang bermaruah dan para peguam yang berdedikasi serta rakyat di negara ini yang berfikir secara waras, saya menyeru supaya anda tidak meninggalkan perjuangan.
Teruskan membuat komen tentang tingkah laku mereka dalam mahkamah. Teruskan menulis artikel-artikel mengenai keputusan- keputusan mereka yang tidak mematuhi dan melaksana undang-undang seperti yang termaktub.
Didiklah orang awam mengenai hak-hak mereka dan dalam mengaplikasikan undang-undang menurut sesuatu keputusan itu.
Sekiranya mereka memilih untuk menyeleweng atau menjauhi darinya – dan mereka sedar tentang perkara itu – maka mereka adalah bersalah kerana menyalah guna kuasa. Lihat muka surat 319 dari buku ‘What Next in the Law’ oleh Lord Denning.
Bagi saya, saya akan berusaha supaya nama mereka yang jahat ini akan terus dikenang tentang kejahatan mereka untuk pengetahuan generasi yang akan datang kecuali jika mereka menginsafi akan kesilapan-kesilapan tentang apa yang mereka lakukan terhadap
rakyat dan negara ini.
Saya akan menulis belasungkawa apabila mereka meninggal dunia. Jika mereka hidup lebih lama daripada saya, nescaya akan ada orang lain yang akan menggantikan tempat saya.
* N H Chan menyertai badan guaman pada tahun 1961 dan bertugas sebagai peguam hampir dua dekad sebelum dilantik menjadi hakim Mahkamah Tinggi. Beliau kemudiannya dinaikkan pangkat di Mahkamah Rayuan sebelum bersara pada tahun 2000.
Beliau mengarang dua buah buku, ‘Judging the Judges’ (2007) dan ‘How to Judge the Judges’.
Oleh N H Chan
Walaupun Perlembagaan British tidak bertulis, tetapi terdapat peruntukan yang hampir sama dengan perlembagaan kita, disebut hak keistimewaan Parlimen. Lord Denning, pada muka surat 192 dalam ‘The Family Story’ menyebut begini:
Dewan Parlimen memiliki beberapa hak keistimewaan. Salah satunya ialah kebebasan bersuara. Erskine May berkata, "apa yang disebut atau dilakukan di dewan Parlimen tidak boleh di persoal di mahkamah undang-undang."
Bil mengenai Hak-Hak 1688 berkata, "kebebasan bersuara dan perdebatan atau prosiding dalam Parlimen, tidak boleh ditarik atau dipersoal dalam mana-mana mahkamah atau dikeluarkan dari Parlimen."
Lord Denning sendiri tidak boleh mempertikai hal ini. Kes ini dilaporkan dalam "Laporan-Laporan Undang-Undang – Akta Hak Istimewa Parlimen 1770 (1958) AC 331". Beliau menyebutnya pada muka surat 193 ‘The Family Story’:
Pada 8 Februari 1957, Encik Strauss MP menulis sepucuk surat – kertas "House of Common" – kepada Encik Maudling. Beliau mengadu tentang sikap Lembaga Elektrik London.
Katanya, mereka hendak menjual kabel terpakai pada harga yang terlalu rendah dan perbuatan mereka itu merupakan satu skandal. Encik Maudling menyalurkan aduan itu kepada Lembaga Elektrik London.
Pada 4 Mac 1957, peguam Lembaga tersebut menulis surat kepada Encik Strauss mengancam untuk memfailkan saman. Surat yang nampaknya mudah itu menimbulkan isu perlembagaan yang serius. Siapa yang lebih berkuasa? Parlimen atau mahkamah-mahkamah undang-undang?
Encik Strauss berkata, surat itu (ugut saman) melanggar hak istimewa Parlimen dan Lembaga itu serta peguamnya boleh dijatuhi hukuman oleh ‘House of Common".
Lembaga itu menyatakan mereka berhak untuk mendapatkan ganti rugi dari mahkamah-mahkamah undang-undang. "House of Common" tidak boleh menghalang mereka.
Isu ini kemudian dirujuk kepada Majlis Privy. Tujuh hakim mendengar kes ini. Saya adalah salah seorang daripadanya. Saya dapati saya berada dalam golongan minoriti kerana saya seorang sahaja.
Keenam-enam mereka memutuskan bahawa ‘House of Common’ boleh menerima writ saman itu terhadap seorang Ahli Parlimen – berdasarkan ucapan atau prosiding di Parlimen – sebagai melanggar hak-hak istimewanya.
Penentangan atau hujah Lord Denning ialah setiap orang Inggeris mempunyai hak untuk mendapat pembelaan di mahkamah-mahkamah undang-undang.
Selepas itu, Encik Strauss dalam pembelaannya boleh membuat rayuan pembelaan hak-hak istimewa Parlimen sebagai "prosiding dalam Parlimen" dalam lingkungan Bil mengenai Hak-Hak.
Pendapat Lord Denning dilihat tidak bercanggah pada kaca mata Majlis Privy. Pada masa dahulu, pendapat yang bersifat menentang tidak boleh dibenarkan. Dari satu segi, Lord Denning adalah betul.
Tidak ada sesiapa pun boleh dihalang dari mendapatkan pembelaan di mahkamah undang-undang.
Tetapi dalam kes yang menjadi persoalan ini, isu ini dirujuk kepada Majlis Privy bagi mendapatkan pandangannya. Perbuatan ini telah mendahului tindakan writ saman. Jika sekiranya isu ini diputuskan oleh mahkamah undang-undang, hak istimewa Parlimen masih merupakan satu langkah pembelaan yang lengkap.
Memandangkan anda kini telah dapat memahami undang-undang, anda akan akui bahawa terdapatnya pemisahan kuasa-kuasa di antara eksekutif kerajaan dan badan kehakiman.
Anda juga tahu makna sebenar kebebasan para hakim. Anda juga pasti bahawa pemisahan di antara kuasa eksekutif dan kuasa kehakiman adalah sesuatu yang benar. Ia bukan mitos. Ia adalah undang-undang negara ini.
Hanya para hakim yang terlibat dalam membuat keputusan-keputusan dalam menangani krisis Perak baru-baru ini yang memilih untuk mengelirukan orang awam kerana enggan melaksanakan undang-undang seperti mana yang termaktub.
Tetapi kepada para hakim yang bermaruah dan para peguam yang berdedikasi serta rakyat di negara ini yang berfikir secara waras, saya menyeru supaya anda tidak meninggalkan perjuangan.
Teruskan membuat komen tentang tingkah laku mereka dalam mahkamah. Teruskan menulis artikel-artikel mengenai keputusan- keputusan mereka yang tidak mematuhi dan melaksana undang-undang seperti yang termaktub.
Didiklah orang awam mengenai hak-hak mereka dan dalam mengaplikasikan undang-undang menurut sesuatu keputusan itu.
Sekiranya mereka memilih untuk menyeleweng atau menjauhi darinya – dan mereka sedar tentang perkara itu – maka mereka adalah bersalah kerana menyalah guna kuasa. Lihat muka surat 319 dari buku ‘What Next in the Law’ oleh Lord Denning.
Bagi saya, saya akan berusaha supaya nama mereka yang jahat ini akan terus dikenang tentang kejahatan mereka untuk pengetahuan generasi yang akan datang kecuali jika mereka menginsafi akan kesilapan-kesilapan tentang apa yang mereka lakukan terhadap
rakyat dan negara ini.
Saya akan menulis belasungkawa apabila mereka meninggal dunia. Jika mereka hidup lebih lama daripada saya, nescaya akan ada orang lain yang akan menggantikan tempat saya.
* N H Chan menyertai badan guaman pada tahun 1961 dan bertugas sebagai peguam hampir dua dekad sebelum dilantik menjadi hakim Mahkamah Tinggi. Beliau kemudiannya dinaikkan pangkat di Mahkamah Rayuan sebelum bersara pada tahun 2000.
Beliau mengarang dua buah buku, ‘Judging the Judges’ (2007) dan ‘How to Judge the Judges’.
MI : Anwar poses a question of penetration
By Shazwan Mustafa Kamal PUTRAJAYA, Feb 12 — Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim wants the sodomy charge against him thrown out because clinical reports suggest there was no anal penetration of his accuser, but prosecutors say semen samples can still prove unnatural carnal activity.
Anwar’s lawyer Karpal Singh and Solicitor-General 2 Datuk Yusof Zainal Abiden argued before the Court of Appeal this morning over the question of penetration in the Opposition Leader’s bid to have the sodomy charges against him struck out.
The Opposition Leader is appealing against a High Court decision to proceed with his trial. His trial has already started in the High Court, but Anwar now wants the Court of Appeal to put an end to it.
Court of Appeal judges Datuk Wira Abu Samah, Datuk Sulaiman Daud and Datuk Azhar Ma’ah conceded that more time is need in order to study the submissions of both the prosecution and the defence. They said they could only deliver a decision on February 17, a day before the High Court trial is set to continue.
On Dec 1, the High Court had dismissed the opposition leader’s bid to strike out the charge against him. Judge Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah had ruled then that the court cannot use its inherent powers to strike out the sodomy charge based solely on medical reports which found no conclusive clinical evidence of anal penetration on Anwar’s accuser and former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.
Anwar had tendered two medical reports from Hospital Kuala Lumpur and Hospital Pusrawi which stated those findings.
Today, the clinical reports became the focus of both teams in presenting their arguments.
Lead counsel for Anwar’s team Karpal argued that the High Court had the power to strike out the charge if it was “abusive of process, oppressive, and prejudicial.” The veteran lawyer stressed that the crux of the case hinged on the question of whether penetration had actually taken place, which according to the clinical reports suggested otherwise.
“The learned judge was misdirected by saying that the reports could not determine whether the act had occured. What does the judge rely upon?
“Was the judge right in having considered the impact? This has been a trauma for Datuk Seri Anwar and his family,” said Karpal.
The fiery lawyer cited the clinical reports by Hospital Kuala Lumpur as proof that there were “no conclusive clinical findings suggestive of penetration in the anus or rectum area.”
“Your lordship, the word conclusive means certainty, far beyond a reasonable doubt. With these findings, I don’t know how the prosecution would proceed with this trial,” said Karpal.
According to the defence lawyer, the fundamental element of the charge against Anwar stands unproven because of the reports and calling other witnesses to testify would simply be an exercise in futility, as section 377B of the Penal Code dictates that penetration is an important element of the charge.
“It is persecution, not prosecution. The court cannot sit back and let the prosecution carry on..the court cannot abdicate from its divine duty to intercede. “It does not matter that the trial has proceeded. The trial is being rushed. Whoever is doing it has a motive.
“The charge ought to be struck out now or is this the result of some black hand behind the prosecution of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim?”
Solicitor-General 2 Datuk Yusof Zainal Abiden countered Karpal’s arguments by arguing that the court must allow the evidence to be produced, stating that the clinical reports are not conclusive.
“The medical report is not substantive evidence, it only corroborates the author (doctor). What the author has to say in court needs to be taken in account,” said Yusof.
He dismissed the defense’s evidence was “affidavit evidence which is not evidence, evidence which the court permits is evidence in court.
“The absence of laceration does not excuse penetration. Proof of penetration of the anus is not needed to establish unnatural carnal activity.
“The presence of traces of lubricant may be suggestive as evidence. The finding of spermatozoa will prove the act almost beyond dispute,” stated Yusof.
Anwar is accused of sodomising his one-time aide at the Desa Damansara Condominium on June 26, 2008.
The former deputy prime minister has vehemently denied the accusations hurled by Saiful, describing it as “evil, frivolous lies by those in power” when the charge was read out to him.
He is charged under section 377B of the Penal Code and can be sentenced to a maximum of 20 years’ jail and whipping upon conviction.
The trial is taking place 18 months after Anwar was charged in court in August 2008. Anwar was charged with sodomy and corruption in 1998 after he was sacked from the Cabinet and was later convicted and jailed for both offences.
He was freed in September 2004 and later resurrected his political career by winning back his Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat in a by-election in 2008, which had been held in the interim by his wife.
He had earlier led the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat, to a historic sweep of five states and 82 parliamentary seats in Election 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)