FAC News - Monday, March 24, 2003 5:22 PM

Day one of the Anwar Ibrahim Appeal Hearing:

Prosecution desperate; charges amended to fit witness’ testimony

The Kuala Lumpur Appeal Court was told today that the prosecution amended the charges against Anwar Ibrahim, twice, in a desperate attempt to fit it to the testimony of its star witness, Azizan Abu Bakar.

“The original charge was ‘one night in the month of May 1994’,” said Christopher Fernando, Anwar’s lead counsel.

“Then, it was revealed that the Tivoli Villa, the place the alleged crime was supposed to have been committed, had not been completed yet.”

“The prosecution found itself in a terrible dilemma. How could sodomy have taken place in a building that had not been completed?”

“So the charge was amended to ‘one night in the month of May 1992’,” explained Fernando.

But this date still could not fit Azizan’s testimony so, in a desperate attempt to salvage their case, it was again amended to “committed the offence of sodomy at 7.45pm between the month of January to March 1993,” argued Fernando.

“First 1994, then 1992 and, finally, 1993,” said Fernando to the court that had the spectator’s gallery by now in stitches.

“The significance of all this was lost on the judge. He was not able to appreciate what was happening.”

“Why the need to amend it to a date in 1993? They could not go backwards to 1992, or earlier, as the building was not even built yet. So the only way was to go forward.”

“Can anybody, without exception, answer a charge as vague as that, all of us included?” asked Fernando.

“One evening in 90 days! I cannot conceive of a more vague and uncertain charge - a most unfair charge.”

“The amendments to the charge are not Bona Fide.” “

The judge then asked, “You mean the amendments were Mala Fide?” to which Fernando replied, “Yes.”

“The charge was amended to fit Azizan’s testimony,” added Fernando.

Azizan, however, testified that he was never sodomised from 1992 onwards.

“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,” said Fernando.

“Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah (the Attorney-General then) said, “We have all the records and evidence pertaining to Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s movements in and out of the country between 1992 and 1998’.”

“If you have all the records and evidence of Dato’ Seri Anwar’s movements, why not produce them? Why such a vague date in the charge?”

“The conclusion to this would be, the records and evidence did not show that Dato’ Seri Anwar was at the Tivoli Villa between January and March 1993.”

“These are trumped-up charges. It has to be. There are no two ways about it.”

“The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister are followed every hour of the day for their own protection and the records of their movements are available.”

“The judge failed to invoke the provisions in section 114(g) of the Evidence Act against the prosecution for failing to produce evidence and records showing Dato’ Seri Anwar’s movements.”

“The records, if produced, would exonerate Dato’ Seri Anwar and would show he was never there (at the Tivoli Villa) during the 60 days (January to March 1993).”