FAC News - Monday, March 24, 2003 5:20 PM

Day one of the Anwar Ibrahim Appeal Hearing:

Prosecution’s ‘star witness’ proven unreliable; admits Anwar never sodomised him

Christopher Fernando, Anwar Ibrahim’s lead counsel, kicked off the appeal hearing in the Kuala Lumpur Appeal Court by telling the court that the prosecution’s case rested primarily on the evidence of Azizan Abu Bakar. The entire case, in fact, was based on the credibility of Azizan.

However, Fernando said, Azizan consistently contradicted himself during the course of the trial and, therefore, is an unreliable witness.

In fact, the court was told, not only should Azizan have been declared an unreliable witness, but he also should have been impeached and cited for perjury.

“Instead,” argued Fernando, “The learned judge held the witness to be credible, reliable and honest.”

“This witness is one of the most unreliable witnesses ever to have come before a court of law,” said Fernando.

“His evidence is riddled with inconsistencies and outright lies. He has given three different versions of what actually transpired.”

Fernando explained that in the first (corruption) trial, Azizan gave evidence that he was sodomised by Anwar but, in the second (sodomy) trial, he testified he was never sodomised by Anwar.

“He admitted not once, but three times that between the years 1992 and 1997 he was never sodomised by Anwar, and that was why he continued to visit Anwar. If not, he would have kept far away from Anwar.”

“He admitted this in the most unequivocal terms,” said Fernando. “The judge himself was taken aback.”

Fernando said the judge then asked him to repeat the question as maybe Azizan did not understand it. Fernando said he then asked Azizan a second time and, for the second time, Azizan admitted Anwar did not sodomise him.

“I then asked him third time just to make sure and to be fair to him,” said Fernando, “And, for the third time, he admitted that Anwar did not sodomise him.”

“After several days, and during the re-examination, a leading question was asked by the prosecution which was most unfair and the judge ought to have rejected it.”

And the question was, “After 1992, were you sodomised again?”

“The defence objected to this question but the judge allowed the question to be asked,” explained Fernando.

“However, in response to this leading question, whether he was sodomised from 1992 to today (1998), Azizan, again, said he was never sodomised.”

“The judge himself made specific findings. On one occasion he said, “This witness says one thing today and another thing tomorrow”.”

The judge also said, “This witness is very evasive. He refuses to answer even simple questions”.”

“The judge himself found Azizan an unreliable witness.”

“It is mind boggling that, after making such a strong statement, the judge can turn around and say the witness is credible, honest and trustworthy.”

“The judge’s statement contradicts his own findings.”