There is much that is disturbing, if not outright shocking about the judgment and appeal in the Anwar Ibrahim case. It is not just that the evidence used to convict Anwar is circumstantial at best, but it is in the manner in which speculative conjecture has become bland certitude and airy theories have been taken to be established facts. One expects of the media of the day, but for the the Prosecution Division of the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) to do this and for the court to accept it is bizarre. Here is a case where neither the motive has been established nor is there any clarity about the Penetration. There are no witnesses not only to the crime to any of the elements of the theory- in particular there is absolutely nothing to suggest that there was any relationship between Saiful and Anwar. For such a far-fetched idea to be accepted without a shred of evidence as the central premise of this crime is absurd. In the reasons listed by in defence of its judgement the Prosecution Division of the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) one blandly states ‘the motive of the commission of the crime has been established’. Nothing could be farther from the truth- in fact there is no proofthat the Penetration took place whatsoever that, even that is pure conjecture.
Allegations that the Prosecution Division of the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) is weak and incapable, especially in handling high profile cases are unfounded and unsubstantiated, said Attorney General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail (pic).
He said the chambers took note and fully appreciated the concerns of the general public.
He pointed out that whether a certain person is charged, depended solely on whether there existed sufficient evidence to prove the charge against the accused.
“Upon charging, Deputy Public Prosecutors will then present the available and admissible evidence to prove the prosecution’s case. What has to be stressed here is that no evidence necessary to prove the charge will be left out.
“The duty to tender all evidence also includes the calling of all essential witnesses. This, however, is wholly dependent upon the availability and cooperativeness of the witnesses in giving their testimony in court,” stressed Abdul Gani in a media statement, today.
The refusal by the AG’s Chambers to release some evidence requested by the defence team in the Sodomy 2 trial – and the consequent refusal by the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court to order the release of such evidence – brings to the fore questions pertaining to the right to a fair trial, degree of professionalism of the prosecution team and the administration of criminal justice in Malaysia. – See more at:
He further pointed out that whether a witness truthfully testifies, however, was not within the power of the prosecutors.
“What matters here is that we never embellish or fabricate evidence and what we ultimately do, should a witness turn hostile, is to impeach him and in turn charge him for perjury,” added Abdul Gani.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers has filed an appeal against the Kuala Lumpur High Court decision in acquitting Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim on the charge of sodomising his former aide.
The notice of appeal was filed in the Criminal Registry of the Kuala Lumpur High Court at 4.30pm today. This was confirmed by Deputy Registrar Halilah Suboh.
High Court judge Zabidin Mohd Diah had on January 9 found Anwar not guilty of sodomising his 23-year-old former aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan. Justice Zabidin in acquitting the 64-year-old de facto PKR leader and Permatang Pauh MP, cast doubton the DNA evidence provided by the prosecution.
“After going through the evidence, I cannot be 100 percent certain that the evidence can be accepted as there could have been tampering.Hence, the court is reluctant to convict on such corroboration of evidence from (Saiful) and the accused is acquitted,” the judge had said.
He said it was also necessary to reiterate that once all evidence of the prosecution case were presented, it was then left to the court to decide on whether the charge had been proven against the accused.
“How and what the courts decide is a matter beyond our control and power. Nevertheless, if we are of the view that the decision is flawed, we will exercise our right to appeal,” assured Abdul Gani.
Defence lawyer: I was not notified
With the filing of the notice of appeal, the prosecution will have wait for Justice Zabidin to complete his written judgment. However, there is no time frame for the judge to do so.
When that is done, the A-G’s Chambers will then file a petition of appeal in the Court of Appeal, which will set a date to hear the appeal.
Anwar’s lawyer Sankara Nair (left) said in a statement this evening that he had not been formally notified of the appeal by the prosecution.
“However, if it is true, then it is most regrettable and atrocious – given that the trial judge has stated succinctly, in his verdict, that the crucial evidence could have been ‘tampered’ with.
“Hence, the substratum of the prosecution’s case is fatally demolished, rendering any appeal, no matter how many times, a desperate act in futility. It appears to be a case of political persecution of Anwar, and not prosecution,” Sankara added in his immediate response.
On the appointment of deputy public prosecutors (DPPs), he explained that cases were assigned to DPPs according to the complexities and intricacies present in the case at hand, whereby cases which involve a higher degree of complexity will be handled by senior DPPs.
In the media statement, Abdul Gani also touched on the difficulties faced by the AGC especially in high profile cases, including the Altantuya Shaaribuu murder case, where the main grounds of acquittal by the Court of Appeal were the non-directions of the trial judge on issues raised by the appellants and the non-calling of DSP Musa Safri.
He said that while respecting the Court of Appeal, non-direction or misdirection of the trial court should not be attributed to the prosecution “as it had nothing to do with the conduct of the prosecution”.
He said that the AGC maintained that Musa’s testimony sheds no relevance to the narrative of the prosecution’s case.
“Hence, this Office has filed an appeal to the Federal Court,” he said.
Meanwhile, on the acquittal of former Transport Minister Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik on a cheating case based on testimonies of two ex-ministers and former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Abdul Gani said the court had held that there was no element of concealment, deception, misrepresentation or inducement on the part of the accused with regards to the purchase of said land.
“This ruling was evidently a finding of fact based on the credibility of the former ministers.
“The Court ruled that based on the former ministers’ interpretation, it was highly unlikely that the Cabinet had been falsely induced to approve the purchase of the land,” said Abdul Gani, adding that it would be trite to appeal the decision as it would be difficult to argue that the Court had erred in its finding of fact.readmoreOn the face of it, it’s difficult to figure why Anwar is treated as a heinous offender by the Malaysian criminal justice system because, according to his prosecutors But , Muhammad Shafee celebrity federal prosecutor currently pursuing Anwar with great ferocity, is hardly going after friends of Mahathir and Najib of a large number on this … Read more
