|
Thursday, 13-May-2004 3:37 PM Day four of the Anwar Ibrahim appeal hearing Day four of the Anwar Ibrahim appeal hearing continued in the Federal Court in Putrajaya today with Anwar’s lead counsel, Christopher Fernando, informing the court that the trial judge had blundered all along the way. Basic and fundamental rules of law were not complied with, said Fernando. Whenever there was a benefit of the doubt, it was given to the prosecution instead of to the defense. Fernando said the Court of Appeal equally erred in upholding the trial judge's verdict. Fernando then read the transcripts of the trial which showed that the trial judge had fully accepted Azizan Abu Bakar's, the prosecution's key witness', testimony in spite of the fact he had perjured himself many times along the way. In fact, argued Fernando, not only should his testimony have been rejected outright, but Azizan should also have been cited for perjury. This, argued Fernando, was a serious misdirection on the part of the trial judge. Further to that, Anwar and his adopted brother, Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja, were made to prove their innocence, whereas it ought to have been the prosecution instead that should prove their guilt. All Anwar and Sukma had to do was raise a reasonable doubt and this they had successfully done, explained Fernando. Yet the trial judge said they had not been able to do so. The issue of the many attempts to fabricate evidence against Anwar was again raised. Fernando brought up the issue of Jamal Abder Rahman that he had mentioned yesterday. Jamal, said Fernando, had made serious allegations against Mustapha Ong, a Malaysian diplomat, who had tried to fabricate evidence against Anwar. In spite of such serious allegations, the prosecution failed to subpoena Mustapha Ong and bring him to court to rebut the allegations whereas the onus was on them to do so. And this was the case with other witnesses as well. Many defense witnesses had come to court to testify that there undoubtedly existed a conspiracy to frame Anwar on trumped-up accusations of sexual misconduct. Fernando then cited examples such as the testimonies of Raja Kamaruddin Raja Wahid, Azmin Ali, and so on. The prosecution, however, failed to produce any of its own witnesses to rebut these allegations. At numerous times the judge was in error and misdirected himself, argued Fernando. In fact, even just one is sufficient to nullify the proceedings. Fernando read the trial judge's written judgment where he said the defense had not established the truth. Fernando reminded the court it is not the defense's job to do so as all it needs to do is to merely raise reasonable doubt. On this one point alone, the judge's verdict should be overturned. On the issue of the credibility of the prosecution's key witness: Azizan, said Fernando, when asked why it took him five years before coming forward to allege Anwar had sodomised him, said that he did so for the sake of his dignity and religion. Azizan was portraying himself as a person of high morals, said Fernando. Yet, during the course of the trial, he was arrested, charged, and convicted of close proximity (khalwat), which proves he is not what he tries to portray himself as. Yet, this was never considered by the court. In short, interrupted Justice Abdul Hamid Mohammad, what you are trying to say is Azizan is not a credible witness, and Fernando confirmed so. The judge had abdicated his judicial responsibility, argued Fernando. He was neither fair nor impartial. The court is in disarray and no one knows any longer how the law is being applied. The judge rejected all the testimonies of the defense witnesses as unreliable and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as reliable, though they perjured themselves. The judge practiced double standards, said Fernando. He blocked the defense from calling witnesses, the then Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad included. The duty of a judge is to dispense justice. However, said Fernando, Anwar's trial judge dispensed with justice. He did not uphold the tenets of the law. The Federal Court has to restore the dignity of the courts by acquitting Anwar of the charge of sodomy, argued Fernando. Fernando then brought up the Manjit Singh Dhillon matter and briefed the court on the background of the incident. Fernando told the court he wonders how many other prosecution witnesses were similarly coerced, blackmailed or bribed into fabricating evidence against Anwar. It is shocking that the Attorney General could resort to such a tactic, said Fernando. In fact, the whole nation was shocked at the corruption in the AG's Chambers. Fernando then read out the contents of Manjit's letter to the then AG (now deceased after lingering in an almost one-year comma following a stroke) complaining about the criminal conduct of the present AG (then the Chief Prosecutor) in attempting to fabricate evidence against Anwar. Letter from Manjeet Singh Dhillon to Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah, 12 October 1998 Statutory Declaration by Manjeet Singh Dhillon, 9 November 9 1998 A prerequisite to a fair trial is not only a fair judge but also a fair prosecution. Until today, the AG and Prosecutor have not come out into the open to rebut this most serious allegation, explained Fernando. The Prosecutor and AG should have been disqualified or recused themselves from prosecuting Anwar as they have a hidden agenda to fix Anwar up. Fernando informed the court that when this evil deed was exposed, one of Anwar's lawyers, Zainur Zakaria, applied for the prosecutors to be disqualified but was instead cited for contempt and handed down a two-month jail sentence. The AG's and Prosecutor's continued involvement in the case contaminated the proceedings, argued Fernando. Zainur Zakaria was eventually acquitted by the Federal Court and in its judgment said that the trial judge had acted like a prosecutor. The Federal Court also commented that, going by Manjit's testimony, it is apparent that there was an attempt by the AG and Prosecutor to fabricate evidence against Anwar. Fernando closed by saying that the defense had raised many instances of misdirection by the trial judge. The Court of Appeal, however, overlooked all this. Amongst the crucial issues where even just one is enough to acquit Anwar without any necessity of calling his defense are: 1) The credibility of the prosecution's key witness. 2) The inconsistency of the prosecution’s key witness’ testimony. 3) The fabrication of evidence against Anwar. 4) The onus being placed on the defense in proving Anwar's and Sukma's innocence. 5) The AG and Prosecutor not disqualifying themselves from the case. 6) The trial judge blocking the defense from calling witnesses. 7) The complainant retracting his allegation of sodomy against Anwar. Fernando completed his submissions around noon after which Sukma’s lawyer took over for the rest of the day to present his submissions. Basically, explained the counsel, he would be taking the court through the same issues already argued by the two counsels for Anwar. (As Anwar and Sukma were jointly tried and the issues would be repetitive, FAC News will not be repeating these submissions). In the meantime, nine members of the British Parliament have expressed their concerns over Anwar’s unfair trials and the deteriorating state of his health. The Early Day Motion (EDM) tabled by Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott, Harry Cohen, Neil Gerrard, MIke Hacock, Paul Holmes, Elfyn Llwyd, Alice Mahon and John McDonnell, reads as follows: Ms Diane Abbott Harry Cohen Mr Neil Gerrard Mr Mike Hancock Paul Holmes Mr Elfyn Llwyd Alice Mahon John McDonnell (nine signatures) That this House registers its concern that the Malaysian Court of Appeal is about to announce its decision in the case of Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysia's former deputy prime minister, who was imprisoned for sodomy charges in 2002, the trial having been criticised by a UN special envoy for compromising the independence and impartiality of the Malaysian justice system by, amongst other things, excluding senior judges from hearing the case; notes that previous trials were deemed not to have met international standards of fairness; further notes Anwar Ibrahim's ever-deteriorating health in detention; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to impress upon the Malaysian Government the importance of a just and fair decision in Anwar Ibrahim's case, which would only serve to improve Malaysia's standing in the international context of human rights. PREVIOUS DAYS' REPORTS Day three of the DSAI appeal hearing - FAC News May 12 Day two of the DSAI appeal hearing - FAC News May 11 Transcripts of the second day of the Anwar Ibrahim appeal hearing - FAC News May 12 First day of the Anwar Ibrahim appeal hearing - FAC News May 10 Transcripts of the first day of the Anwar Ibrahim appeal hearing - FAC News May 11
|
