The judge will decide if the prime minister and his wife will have to appear in court as defence witnesses in Anwar's trial.
UPDATED
KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court will decide on Thursday the joint application by Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor to set aside subpoenas compelling the couple to testify in Anwar Ibrahim’s Sodomy II trial.
Judge Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah set the date after hearing submissions from the couple’s lawyers, as well as from lawyers representing Anwar.
Anwar’s argument is that it was important to have Najib and Rosmah to testify in his trial so that he could find out what had transpired in a meetings involving the prime minister and complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.
Anwar also wants Rosmah to explain about her meeting with Muhamad Rahimi Osman, a close friend of Saiful. (Rahimi was said to have gone to Rosmah to seek assistance on behalf of his friend.)
Najib and Rosmah have however stressed that they have no knowledge of the alleged sodomy and stated they were not relevant to the trial.
Both had denied conspiring with anyone to incriminate Anwar despite Najib admitting in his affidavit that he had met Saiful two days prior to the alleged sodomy.
One of Najib’s lawyers, Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, today submitted that the couple could not provide “relevant and material” evidence to the proceedings.
He also accused the defence of embarking on a “fishing expedition”as Anwar had failed to show connections and nexus on why both Najib and Rosmah could provide relevant evidence to the trial’s proceedings.
Meetings not linked to trial
Reading excerpts of Najib’s affidavit, Teh said: “I have no knowledge at all of the incident (sodomy) that had occurred on June 26. I have never seen Saiful before June 24, I only met him then and do not know him previously”.
Teh argued that the June 24 meeting had no relevance to what had happened on June 26.
“This meeting has got no nexus or connection whatsoever with the (sodomy) charge on June 26. He (Anwar) wants Najib to provide further clarification and gratification on what had happened on June 24. But there is no connection,” he said.
He added that the primary charge in the trial was to prove whether the sodomy act had occurred on June 26 and not to discuss matters which happened “a day before or the day after”.
On Rosmah’s meeting with Rahimi, Teh asked what was the connection between the meeting and what had transpired on June 26. He also said that Rosmah in her affidavit had denied ever meeting Saiful.
Adding to this argument, Solicitor General Mohamed Yusof Zainal Abiden said that nowhere in Anwar’s affidavit did he state what relevant evidence did Najib and Rosmah have in order for them to testify in court.
“(Anwar) has to show that Najib and Rosmah have in their possession relevant evidence to cause them to testify in court. In both affidavits, nothing has been stated on what is the relevant or material evidence (that they possess) that is significant and essential to help the court come up with a decision,” he said.
“Not only does he have to show the evidence, he must show the evidence which will effect and influence the court’s decision and that the respondent (Anwar) has failed,” he added.
Important to know what transpired at meetings
Anwar’s lawyer Karpal Singh argued that Najib had admitted meeting Saiful for half an hour, and this was “quite a period of time” during which they must have discussed other matters which may be relevant to the trial.
He added that since clarification and explanation over the meetings were sought, and both Najib and Rosmah had declined to be interviewed by Anwar’s counsel on Aug 12, a subpoena was the only way to obtain more information.
“We wanted to know from the prime minister of what transpired during this time,” he said.
He also said that it was ‘mind-boggling” that Saiful, merely two days after receiving advice from Najib to lodge a police report on Anwar’s alleged actions, would allow himself to be sodomised again on June 26.
“Surely, one would follow the advice of a personality of no mean rank,” he said.
On Rosmah, Karpal argued that investigating officer DSP Jude Blacious Pereira had given evidence in the trial that a statement under section 112 of the Criminal Code Procedure (CPC) had been recorded from Rosmah.
Karpal said that under Section 112, she was “suppose to have been acquainted with the facts and circumstance of the case” against Anwar. Hence it was bona fide to ask Rosmah to appear in court.
Last month, Najib and Rosmah were subpoenaed by Anwar’s defence team to appear as defence witnesses.
On Sept 21, Najib and Rosmah filed the applications to set aside the subpoenas, which was heard before the trial judge today.
Anwar, 64, claimed trial on Aug 7, 2008, to committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature at the Desa Damansara Condominium in Bukit Damansara between 3.10pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.
Anwar’s trial meanwhile will continue tomorrow.
UPDATED
KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court will decide on Thursday the joint application by Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor to set aside subpoenas compelling the couple to testify in Anwar Ibrahim’s Sodomy II trial.Judge Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah set the date after hearing submissions from the couple’s lawyers, as well as from lawyers representing Anwar.
Anwar’s argument is that it was important to have Najib and Rosmah to testify in his trial so that he could find out what had transpired in a meetings involving the prime minister and complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.
Anwar also wants Rosmah to explain about her meeting with Muhamad Rahimi Osman, a close friend of Saiful. (Rahimi was said to have gone to Rosmah to seek assistance on behalf of his friend.)
Najib and Rosmah have however stressed that they have no knowledge of the alleged sodomy and stated they were not relevant to the trial.
Both had denied conspiring with anyone to incriminate Anwar despite Najib admitting in his affidavit that he had met Saiful two days prior to the alleged sodomy.
One of Najib’s lawyers, Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, today submitted that the couple could not provide “relevant and material” evidence to the proceedings.
He also accused the defence of embarking on a “fishing expedition”as Anwar had failed to show connections and nexus on why both Najib and Rosmah could provide relevant evidence to the trial’s proceedings.
Meetings not linked to trial
Reading excerpts of Najib’s affidavit, Teh said: “I have no knowledge at all of the incident (sodomy) that had occurred on June 26. I have never seen Saiful before June 24, I only met him then and do not know him previously”.
Teh argued that the June 24 meeting had no relevance to what had happened on June 26.
“This meeting has got no nexus or connection whatsoever with the (sodomy) charge on June 26. He (Anwar) wants Najib to provide further clarification and gratification on what had happened on June 24. But there is no connection,” he said.
He added that the primary charge in the trial was to prove whether the sodomy act had occurred on June 26 and not to discuss matters which happened “a day before or the day after”.
On Rosmah’s meeting with Rahimi, Teh asked what was the connection between the meeting and what had transpired on June 26. He also said that Rosmah in her affidavit had denied ever meeting Saiful.
Adding to this argument, Solicitor General Mohamed Yusof Zainal Abiden said that nowhere in Anwar’s affidavit did he state what relevant evidence did Najib and Rosmah have in order for them to testify in court.
“(Anwar) has to show that Najib and Rosmah have in their possession relevant evidence to cause them to testify in court. In both affidavits, nothing has been stated on what is the relevant or material evidence (that they possess) that is significant and essential to help the court come up with a decision,” he said.
“Not only does he have to show the evidence, he must show the evidence which will effect and influence the court’s decision and that the respondent (Anwar) has failed,” he added.
Important to know what transpired at meetings
Anwar’s lawyer Karpal Singh argued that Najib had admitted meeting Saiful for half an hour, and this was “quite a period of time” during which they must have discussed other matters which may be relevant to the trial.
He added that since clarification and explanation over the meetings were sought, and both Najib and Rosmah had declined to be interviewed by Anwar’s counsel on Aug 12, a subpoena was the only way to obtain more information.
“We wanted to know from the prime minister of what transpired during this time,” he said.
He also said that it was ‘mind-boggling” that Saiful, merely two days after receiving advice from Najib to lodge a police report on Anwar’s alleged actions, would allow himself to be sodomised again on June 26.
“Surely, one would follow the advice of a personality of no mean rank,” he said.
On Rosmah, Karpal argued that investigating officer DSP Jude Blacious Pereira had given evidence in the trial that a statement under section 112 of the Criminal Code Procedure (CPC) had been recorded from Rosmah.
Karpal said that under Section 112, she was “suppose to have been acquainted with the facts and circumstance of the case” against Anwar. Hence it was bona fide to ask Rosmah to appear in court.
Last month, Najib and Rosmah were subpoenaed by Anwar’s defence team to appear as defence witnesses.
On Sept 21, Najib and Rosmah filed the applications to set aside the subpoenas, which was heard before the trial judge today.
Anwar, 64, claimed trial on Aug 7, 2008, to committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature at the Desa Damansara Condominium in Bukit Damansara between 3.10pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.
Anwar’s trial meanwhile will continue tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment