|
FAC News - Sunday, March 16, 2003 8:59 AM IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: BETWEEN DATO' SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM APPLICANT/APPELLANT AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT (IN THE MATTER OF RULE 137 OF THE RULES OF THE FEDERAL COURT 1995) (IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 317 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE) (IN THE MATTER OF COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL NO:W05-25-99 & W05-27-99) BETWEEN DATO' SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM APPELLANT AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR RESPONDENT (IN
THE MATTER OF HIGH COURT OF NOTICE OF MOTION THIS NOTICE OF MOTION IS FILED BY Messrs S.N.
Nair & Partners, solicitors for the Applicant/Appellant whose
address for service is at AFFIDAVIT I, ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM (NRIC NO. 470810-07-5095) a Malaysian citizen of full age and presently residing at Penjara Sungai Buloh, Selangor Darul Ehsan, do solemnly and sincerely affirm and say as follows:- 1. I am the abovementioned Applicant/Appellant. I am affirming this affidavit in support of the application filed herein. 2. The facts and circumstances relating to the matter herein are true and correct and within my personal belief and knowledge unless otherwise stated. 3. I was charged under Section 2 of
the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No. 22 of 1970 at the
High Court of Malaya at Wilayah Persekutuan, 4. I appealed against the decision of the
High Court to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal on
5. It has been brought to my knowledge
that on 6. The letter sent to Zainur Zakaria contained an enclosure which is a letter written by Mr. Manjeet Singh Dhillon to Y.A.A. the Chief Justice where Mr. Manjeet Singh Dhillon made a formal complaint against Justice Augustine Paul for improper conduct in the Re Zainur Zakaria case which occurred during my trial. 7. These two letters were faxed to Fernando
as he is my lead counsel in my upcoming appeal before the Court
of Appeal beginning on (Mr. Manjeet Singh Dhillon will hereinafter be referred to as MSD). 8. MSD's letter to Zainur Zakaria is (Now shown to me and marked exhibit "DSAI 1"). 9. MSD's letter to Y.A.A. Chief Justice is (Now shown to me and marked exhibit "DSAI 2"). 10. Pursuant to this, Fernando faxed a
letter to MSD dated 11. There after, MSD replied to those queries in a letter dated 12. These letters vividly set out the true position. 13. In the light of crucial new evidence which has been brought to my notice recently, contained inter alia in MSD's letter, I instructed my counsel to file this application. I urge this honorable court to allow me in the interests of justice to adduce such evidence under Section 137 of the rules of the Federal Court. 14. I am advised and verily believe that Rule 137 of the rules of the Federal Court 1995 confers on the Federal Court inter alia an inherent power to hear any application or to make any order as maybe necessary to prevent injustice. 15. In the premises I respectfully urge this honorable court to invoke the said power to hear and allow my application to adduce this fresh/additional evidence. The evidence sought to be adduced through MSD was not available to me during my trial and this evidence is relevant to my case. Such evidence is credible and believable coming from a witness who is a senior and respected Advocate and Solicitor and a former Chairman of the Bar Council. Last but not least, this evidence would have had a decidedly important influence on the outcome of my case. 16. I am advised and verily believe that I have met all the conditions to justify the reception of the evidence proposed to be adduced. 17. Inter alia the evidence that is sought to be adduced is to the following effect:- (i) That MSD was requested by Tan Sri Mokhtar Abdullah to see him before proceedings for the proposed contempt proceedings against himself and Zainur Zakaria began that morning. The request was made through MSD's counsel, Mr. Jagjeet Singh. MSD reluctantly agreed and met with Tan Sri Mokhtar Abdullah. They met at the anteroom at the court house in the presence of Datuk Abdul Ghani Patail (hereinafter referred to as AGP), Datuk Azhar Mohamad (hereinafter referred to as AM) and Mr. Jagjeet Singh. Upon seeing MSD, Tan Sri Mokhtar went up and hugged him and turned around and told AGP and AM that MSD was an altruist and apologized to MSD for not having done anything on MSD's letter in which he had leveled accusations against AGP. Tan Sri Mokhtar added that he had not as yet taken this matter up with his officers. MSD responded by reminding Tan Sri Mokhtar that he had made very serious allegations against his officers and had written to him expecting something to be done but that nothing had been done. (This letter referred to is the letter where MSD complained to Tan Sri Mokhtar that AGP and AM had attempted to extort fabricated evidence from his client Datuk Nalla Karuppan through him to be used against Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (DSAI) in exchange for Nalla's life). Tan Sri Mokhtar did not deny or refute MSD's allegations against his officers and both AGP and AM remained silent. I respectfully state that this honorable court can draw the necessary conclusions from this incident. (ii) That as early as September 1998
Datuk Nalla Karuppan had made a signed statement denying any involvement
in any sexual improprieties involving me. This statement was in
response to the affidavits of SAC Musa Hassan dated 18. It is patently clear therefore, that the learned judge had made a glaringly erroneous assumption. The fact of the matter is that MSD had taken instructions from his client well before the meeting with AGP and was aware that his client was not able to provide the fabricated evidence demanded unless the latter resorted to lying. 19. My case was unprecedented in that no evidence was allowed to be led at all by the trial court on my application to prohibit AGP and AM from further handling my case. 20 The learned judge in an unusual twist of events (instead of hearing my application), directed his apparent "anger and abhorrence"at Zainur Zakaria and unjustifiably found him guilty of contempt of court for having the "audacity" to file such a "frivolous" application. 21. This unusual attitude of the trial court had effectively deprived me of the opportunity of exposing an evil plot against me to secure my conviction by devious means perpetrated by none other than the two main prosecutors in my case one of whom is now the Attorney General. 22. In summarily dismissing my application, the trial judge made an erroneous and untenable finding to the effect that the apparent object of my application was to "hoodwink the public into believing that the prosecution case is anchored on fabricated evidence". 23. The trial judge was clearly wrong in making that unwarranted finding as it is beyond dispute that it was AGP and AM who were the ones who were both guilty of "hoodwinking" the public and the court, clearly pointing to the fact that there was a conspiracy in place which conspiracy inter alia included the two prosecutors. 24. As a natural consequence of this, the trial judge had prejudiced his mind to my detriment. 25. Had the learned trial judge considered the above evidence and viewed matters in their proper perspective he would not have arrived at the decision that he did. 26. I respectfully state that I have been subjected to a most unfair trial and I ask this honorable court to grant my application in the interests of justice. 27. All I ask for is JUSTICE in accordance with law. Plain and simple justice. THIS AFFIDAVIT IS FILED BY Messrs S.N.
Nair & Partners, solicitors for the Applicant/Appellant whose
address for service is at
|
|
Back |