I suppose, in the end, it is all about politics and not about justice. Hence Najib would have to do what is politically beneficial to him. But this whole episode can go either way. If they win the appeal it can backfire. If they lose the appeal it can also backfire. It will all depend on how they engineer their perception management. And Najib’s boys do not have what it takes to do proper perception management.THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
First, read today’s news item from The Malaysian Insider (below). Next, below that, read what I wrote four years ago on 21st July 2008. Well, you know me, I just can’t resist an ‘I told you so’ article whenever things turn out the way I said they would. So, this is my ego at work. So what? Sue me then. But when I am right I am right. What more can I say?
I have said this before and I am going to say it again. There are those who are so quick to brush off my pieces as storytelling, far-fetched, spinning, or even downright lies. My response has always been: it may take five years or longer, but eventually what I say is always proven correct in the end. And in this case has it not, yet again, been proven correct?
The judge appears to agree with me on a few points. First would be that there is a doubt as to how they procured the evidence against Anwar. They have been very sloppy and too many people were involved. Thus there is a danger of someone talking. The best conspiracy is a conspiracy of one. When more than one person is involved, it becomes very dangerous that there would be a leak.
Next, the same people who were involved in the Sodomy 1 episode were also involved in Sodomy 2. This includes AG Gani Patail, IGP Musa Hassan (retired) and SAC Rodwan Mohd Yusof. And these same three who messed up Sodomy 1 also messed up Sodomy 2 -- a bunch of bungling amateurs.
In the Sodomy 1 judgment, the Federal Court had ruled that while they may be convinced that Anwar is guilty, the Prosecution, however, failed to prove Anwar’s guilt. Hence the Federal Court overturned the guilty verdict. This is opposite to what the trail judge said: that Anwar had failed to prove his innocence.
In a criminal indictment, it is not up to the Accused to prove his or her innocence. It is up to the Prosecution to prove guilt. And, this, the Prosecution had failed to do. Hence the Federal Court had to release Anwar back in September 2004. And the same bungling fools who were behind Sodomy 1 were also behind Sodomy 2. So can you expect the verdict to go any differently?
Next point: Anwar was convicted in the Sodomy 1 trial based solely on the testimony of the witness (the alleged victim of the sodomy act). They tried that, again, in the Sodomy 2 trial. However, while in the Sodomy 1 trial the judge said that although the witness is unreliable and keeps changing his testimony, his testimony can still be believed (in other words, the witness is a liar but what he says can be accepted as evidence), in the Sodomy 2 trial, the judge said, “Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan’s allegation that he was sodomised by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was uncorroborated and a conviction based solely on the accuser’s testimony would have been unsafe.” In other words, the testimony of the witness (the alleged victim of the sodomy act) needs corroboration. His sole testimony is not good enough.
In the Sodomy 1 trial, the trial judge invented his own rules. An unreliable witness who keeps changing his testimony is acceptable. Uncorroborated evidence is acceptable. The Accused must prove his innocence, not the Prosecution prove guilt. But the Federal Court disagreed with these views.
In the Sodomy 2 trial, the trial judge upheld proper convention. If the evidence is suspect then it must be rejected. Corroboration is required. The benefit of the doubt must be given to the Accused. The Accused need not prove his or her innocence. Instead, the Prosecution must prove guilt.
Okay, what happens now? Will the Prosecution now appeal the trial judge’s decision? And if they do, will the Federal Court agree with the trial judge or will they overturn the verdict?
In an appeal hearing, they cannot introduce new evidence even if later they do discover new evidence. The arguments in an appeal hearing must be centred on what was argued during the trial. The focus would be whether the trial judge erred. I doubt the Federal Court would disagree with the verdict of the trial judge. So maybe the government should ‘save face’ and forget about appealing. If they do appeal and the Federal Court upholds the verdict of the trial judge, this would be an even bigger slap in the government’s face. People would be even more convinced that Anwar is a victim of a conspiracy.
Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak must remember that the Sodomy 2 episode was during Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s and Syed Hamid Albar’s time. Hence Naib’s hands are ‘clean’, so to speak. And the fact that Anwar was acquitted during Najib’s watch augurs well for the Prime Minister. If the matter is now dropped Najib can score some points. But if they appeal this case and they win the appeal, Najib would be seen as reneging on his promise of reforms. Of course, if they lose the appeal, then Najib’s spin-doctors can always say that this proves that the courts are independent.
I suppose, in the end, it is all about politics and not about justice. Hence Najib would have to do what is politically beneficial to him. But this whole episode can go either way. If they win the appeal it can backfire. If they lose the appeal it can also backfire. It will all depend on how they engineer their perception management. And Najib’s boys do not have what it takes to do proper perception management.
Sodomy II written judgment: Unsafe to convict based solely on Saiful’s testimony
(The Malaysian Insider, 3rd July 2012) - Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan’s allegation that he was sodomised by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was uncorroborated and a conviction based solely on the accuser’s testimony would have been unsafe, the Kuala Lumpur High Court concluded in its written judgment of the opposition leader’s Sodomy II trial that was released today.
High Court judge Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah said in his 80-page written judgment that it could not be 100 per cent certain about the integrity of DNA samples examined by government chemist Dr Seah Lay Hong.
He ruled that it is not safe to rely on the results of Dr Seah’s examination of the DNA evidence.
“There was no evidence to corroborate the evidence of Saiful on factum of penetration,” he said.
“The court is always reluctant to convict an accused person based solely on the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant. Therefore the accused is acquitted and discharged of the charge,” he ruled.
On January 9, the High Court acquitted Anwar of a charge of sodomising his former male aide Mohd Saiful (picture).
Speaking in court then, the judge had ruled that the prosecution had not done enough to prove Anwar had committed sodomy against Saiful.
Anwar, 64, had been similarly indicted of sodomy over a decade ago and was found guilty. He spent six years in jail before being exonerated.
The High Court’s decision this time had given a boost to Anwar’s Pakatan Rakyat (PR) pact’s plans to take over Putrajaya.
The prosecution says it plans to appeal the decision and has 10 days from today to do so.
How, yet again, they are trying to fabricate evidence against Anwar
(Malaysia Today, 21st July 2008) - It was a great party that night. The Chemistry Department was so pleased they had an airtight case against Anwar Ibrahim they decided to celebrate. And the RM25,000 party was financed by a Good Samaritan who was delighted that this time, unlike last time, they have got Anwar by the balls.
RM25,000 is not a lot to spend on a party if it is a party to celebrate the wedding of the Prime Minister. Last year, when Abdullah Ahmad Badawi got married to the Maid from Putrajaya, they spent millions. RM25,000 is also not a lot to spend on a celebration the day Najib Tun Razak finally takes over as Prime Minister in 2010. Rosmah Mansor spends more than that on a handbag. But RM25,000 is certainly a lot to spend on a party to celebrate the ‘success’ of the Chemistry Department in being able to nail Anwar’s balls to the wall.
Why does the Good Samaritan need to sponsor a RM25,000 party for the Chemistry Department staff? What is there to celebrate? Do they always celebrate with a RM25,000 party whenever they succeed in cracking a case? Or was this an once-in-a-lifetime celebration for successfully coming up with the ‘evidence’ to send Anwar to jail for at least ten years, which will ensure he will never be able to form the new federal government on 16 September 2008?
Hold on a while though. Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said that Anwar must volunteer his ‘new’ DNA profile. The 1998 DNA profile that the police have on record is ‘too old’, argued Abdullah. The police, in turn, said that if Anwar refuses to volunteer his ‘new’ DNA profile then they would have to obtain a court order to force him to do so. Hmm…..there appears to be many things wrong with all this.
Firstly, if the Chemistry Department has already wrapped up its case and the airtight ‘evidence’ against Anwar has already been secured, then why the need for Anwar’s new DNA profile? DNA profiles never expire. Would the police also need Anwar’s ‘new’ fingerprints because the one they took ten years ago has ‘expired’? Fingerprints never change from the day you were born till the day you die. And the same goes for DNA profiles as well.
If you can remember, they once dug up Napoleon Bonaparte’s grave and did an examination to prove he had died of arsenic poisoning. And Napoleon died on 5 May 1821, which is more than 187 years ago. You mean to say that Anwar’s DNA profile of ten years ago is already basi?
The truth is, the airtight ‘evidence’ that the Chemistry Department recently conjured is based on Anwar’s specimen of 1998. So they need a new specimen dated 2008. If not, if Anwar calls in an independent foreign expert to audit the Chemistry Department’s evidence, he or she might just discover that the so-called ‘evidence’ is actually ten years old and not from the 26 June 2008 ‘sodomy’ incident as alleged by the government.
Yes, that’s right, they not only can tell whether the so-called ‘semen’ on Saiful’s underwear belongs to Anwar, they can also tell whether it is from September 1998 when they first took Anwar’s specimen, or whether it is dated 26 June 2008 as alleged by the government.
The ‘evidence’ is ready. The semen specimen on Saiful’s underwear has been 'confirmed' as Anwar's. The only problem is if they allow an independent foreign expert to do an audit on the Chemistry Department’s findings, he or she might confirm that the specimen is ten years old and not dated 26 June 2008 as alleged.
So they need to exchange the September 1998 specimen with a new one dated July 2008. And that is why Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Syed Hamid Albar, and all those others, have asked Anwar to volunteer his new specimen. They need this new specimen to ‘prove’ that the semen on Saiful’s underwear is dated 26 June 2008 and not September 1998. And Abdullah himself ‘confirmed’ this when he asked Anwar to volunteer his new specimen whereas the old specimen is good enough if it is just required for DNA profiling -- only that it would not pass the test if an independent foreign expert was to audit the Chemistry Department’s ‘evidence’ and then come out with a report that says the specimen is ten years old.
Yes, in September 1998 they already took Anwar’s specimen. But they can’t use it as evidence in this latest sodomy allegation. They need to ‘update’ the evidence and unless they can force Anwar to give them his new specimen then the evidence will be shot full of holes. And that is why the police had to reluctantly release Anwar on police bail one day after his dramatic Hollywood-style arrest. They had to either release him or bring him to court to be charged. But how to charge Anwar when the evidence is defective? And evidence of Anwar’s so-called sodomy crime supported by a specimen from September 1998 will certainly be defective and will not stand up in court. Anwar is alleged to have sodomised Saiful on 26 June 2008, not in September 1998.
Now can you see how the slime-ball AG and scumbag IGP work? And these two slithery creatures are the same slime-balls and scumbags who fabricated evidence in 1998 that resulted in Anwar having to spend six years in jail. And am I committing an act of sedition and criminal defamation in saying this? I certainly hope so. And, while we are at it, why not I commit yet another ‘crime’? I am going to accuse the AG and IGP of fabricating evidence and of intimidating witnesses.
You see, they asked a certain doctor from a certain hospital to conduct an examination on Saiful. The doctor did so and he came out with a report that said there is no evidence Anwar had ever penetrated or sodomised the young man. The police then picked up the doctor and detained him for three days. As much as they tried to force him to change his report to implicate Anwar he refused to do so.
Until today, the doctor stands by his report that there is no evidence Anwar had sodomised Saiful. He knows he is going to be made to pay for this but he doesn’t care. He is not going to change his report and say that Anwar sodomised Saiful whatever they do to him. Exasperated, the police had to release Anwar on personal bond or police bail. The doctor refuses to doctor his report and neither does Anwar want to volunteer his new specimen.
The ‘evidence’ against Anwar is no good. They now need to look for another way to ‘prove’ that Anwar sodomised Saiful. In the meantime, let us see if the AG will be making another police report against me and whether the IGP is going to arrest me and charge me in court for sedition and criminal defamation for this latest allegation of mine.
Hey, I already face four charges of sedition and criminal defamation. What are another two or three charges? The important thing is not whether I get sent to jail or not. What is important is that the world is told that they are attempting, yet again, to fabricate evidence against Anwar Ibrahim. And that is worth going to jail for.