Anwar is the first person in Malaysian history to be convicted for the crime of ‘corruption’ where no financial gain is involved. Normally, under the particular section of the law that Anwar was charged, money, shares, or some form of asset needs to change hands before one can be brought up on corruption charges. Anwar’s alleged crime was that he had ‘abused his authority’ by instructing the Special Branch to coerce witnesses to retract their allegations of sexual misconduct against him.
Anwar is also the first person in Malaysian history who was convicted for a sexual crime purely on the sole testimony of the alleged victim with no other corroborating evidence such as witnesses, a DNA test, or a medical report. Further to that, the alleged victim testified in court that Anwar DID NOT sodomise him – and he testified so THREE times under oath.
During the course of the trial, it was revealed that the Director of the Special Branch had approached Anwar’s Chief Private Secretary then, Azmin Ali, to solicit his help in getting his sister, Ummi Hafilda Ali, to retract the sexual misconduct allegation against Anwar.
When Azmin replied that that would be quite difficult to do because, since the allegations surfaced, he no longer talked to his sister, the Director then asked to see Anwar in an attempt to persuade him to lodge a police report so that they could start investigations to find out who was behind the conspiracy to frame him. (No police action can be taken unless a police report is first made).
And this was the basis of Anwar’s ‘corrupt act’ - the accusation that he had ‘summoned the Special Branch to see him’ when it was the Special Branch that was ‘chasing’ him.
Anwar then consulted the Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who suggested that Anwar just ignore the whole thing. Mahathir said he too is the target of many accusations and allegations, and if he acted on every one of them, he would no longer have any time to do other work.
Anwar relayed this decision to the Special Branch who still insisted that he allow them to pursue the matter on grounds of national security. The Special Branch regarded an accusation such as this, aimed at the Deputy Prime Minister, as something very serious and tantamount to trying to sabotage the country. The Special Branch, therefore, needed to get to the bottom of it and flush the conspirators out for the sake of the country.
After a thorough investigation, the Special Branch sent their report to the Prime Minister saying that the allegations against Anwar were false and fabricated by people in high places who were trying to bring Anwar down. The Prime Minister then told the nation to ignore the lies that are being spread by people jealous of Anwar who are trying to prevent him from becoming the next Prime Minister. The Prime Minister also said only stupid people will believe these lies.
The main charges against Anwar were that he had sodomised his wife’s driver (second charge) and that he had tried to get the Special Branch to cover it up (first charge). The so-called victim, Azizan Abu Bakar, though, testified that he never made any complaint or police report with regards to the alleged sodomy act and, in fact, did not even tell the police that he was sodomised. When asked on what basis, therefore, did the police decide to prosecute Anwar, the Special Branch Director testified that it was based on the book “50 Reasons Why Anwar Cannot Become Prime Minister” – the first time the police acted without the benefit of a complaint or a police report from the ‘victim’ of the crime.
Prior to that, the court had granted an injunction against the book and the book’s author was brought before the court and charged for publishing slander and unsubstantiated accusations. It took the nation by surprise when Anwar, the victim of the slander, was charged instead, even though no report was made against him. Further to that, the judge who granted the injunction against the book was immediately transferred.
Other perplexing incidences that were exposed during the course of the trial which violates judicial norms and makes one wonder how Anwar could have been found guilty of both the corruption and sodomy charges are:
The police admitted that no police report was made and that the basis for prosecuting Anwar was the rumours and the contents of the book.
The alleged victim had been ‘turned over’ to say that Anwar sodomised him (the term used for ‘coercing’) - which is the ‘normal’ practice of the Malaysian Police, the court was told.
The Special Branch had sent the Prime Minister a report saying that the allegations against Anwar are lies and fabricated by conspirators trying to bring Anwar down.
The alleged sodomy act was supposed to have occurred ‘one day in the month of May 1994’. The police testified that this date was based on the information obtained during the interrogation of the ‘victim’. And this was what the first charge read.
The so-called victim then testified that it never occurred after May 1992, only before that, so the ‘May 1994’ charge suddenly became defective. The charge was then changed to ‘May 1992’ to fit this testimony while ‘typographical error’ was cited as the reason for the amendment to the charge.
Anwar then file his Notice of Alibi proving that in May 1992 the Tivoli Villa, the alleged scene of the crime, was still under construction and was not completed yet, so it could not have happened at that time, date and place in question.
The ‘victim’ was then interrogated a second time to ‘help him remember the correct date’. After he ‘remembered’ the ‘correct date’, the charges were then, again, amended to ‘one day between 1 January 1993 and 31 March 1993’.
When the defence argued that the law requires the charge to specify, precisely, the time, date and place of the alleged crime, and when Anwar managed to provide an alibi for the entire 90 days from 1 January to 31 March 1993 to prove he was never at the scene of the crime, the prosecution argued that ‘from time immemorial, dates have never been important’. Though they cannot pinpoint the precise time and date the alleged crime was supposed to have occurred, this does not matter as long as they can pinpoint the place.
The trial judge would interview the defence before any witnesses are called to find out what they will be testifying. The judge would then rule those defence witnesses irrelevant and would not allow them to be called.
Halfway through the defence witnesses giving their testimony, the trial judge would cut them off and dismiss them without allowing them to complete their testimony.
The trial judge would rule certain evidence not relevant and would expunge them from the records whenever the prosecution was not able to rebut this testimony and it looked like it would damage the prosecution’s case.
In a sex crime, the sole testimony of the alleged victim is not sufficient but corroboration is required. In the case against Anwar, however, there was no corroboration other than the sole testimony of the alleged victim.
When the defence asked that the so-called victim be sent for a medical examination to determine whether he had indeed been sodomised – as there was still time to do so – the prosecution refused, saying that a medical examination is not conclusive anyway.
Anwar’s alleged partner-in-crime, his adopted brother, who was jointly-charged with him and, earlier, sent to jail for six months for ‘allowing Anwar to sodomise him’, was examined by a doctor, Dr Zahari Noor, who testified that he found no evidence he was ever sodomised. In fact, he suffers from piles due to an extremely small anal passage so it would have been impossible for Anwar to have sodomised him – he had to be operated upon to widen his anal passage so that he could move his bowels.
(Anwar’s adopted brother was convicted and jailed on the strength of his ‘confession’ that was obtained under police torture.)
Witnesses came to court to testify that various people in high places had bribed the so-called victim and his co-conspirator to fabricate evidence against Anwar.
However, the prosecution refused to call these people to court to rebut or confirm this allegation, and when the defence tried to subpoena them instead, the court would not allow it to do so. The judge then ruled the testimony of these witnesses as ‘hearsay’ - since it was never confirmed or denied - and refused to consider it.
The prosecution witnesses contradicted themselves and changed their testimonies all along the way. The court, however, ruled that though they may have been inconsistent, ‘these inconsistencies have been explained’ and the court was satisfied. The court also said that no one human can be expected to be 100% consistent and that everyone, however honest and truthful he may be, will be inconsistent.
A prominent lawyer and one-time Malaysian Bar Council Chairman testified and signed a Statutory Declaration alleging that the Attorney-General and the Chief Prosecutor had blackmailed his client with the death sentence unless he (the client) testified that he had procured women for Anwar. No action was taken against them and they continued to head the prosecution against Anwar. No action was taken against the lawyer for ‘malicious lies’ either, so the allegation remains undisputed.
These were but just some of the numerous peculiar goings-on during the Anwar Ibrahim trials that made a mockery of the entire judicial system. In spite of all this, the court still found Anwar guilty of both corruption and sodomy, and it handed down a most excessive sentence that has never been handed down even for real corruption cases that involved hundreds of millions of public funds.
FAC News
No comments:
Post a Comment