data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/802c5/802c5e129b8b17b6fed6d92ed37ffda9d9a32607" alt="Image Image"
Anwar: Back to prison?
Two years later, the government’s case still looks manufactured
After nearly two years of conflicting and often suspect testimony,
the so-called Sodomy II trial of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim is
scheduled to finish this week in a Kuala Lumpur High Court, with final
summations by both sides.
It is a trial that has been condemned internationally by legal scholars
and human rights activists as designed to take Anwar out of Malaysia’s
political equation.
Political sources in Malaysia have been building several different
scenarios. Given the tone of the trial so far, it appears likely that
Anwar, the opposition leader of the three-party Pakatan Rakyat, will be
convicted despite a vast number of prosecutorial missteps. That would
probably make him a martyr in Malaysia because his followers – and many
others – believe he is being railroaded into jail on false charges.
Under another scenario, the judge, acting under orders from the
government, would declare him not guilty, which would be followed
immediately by a prosecutorial appeal, which would keep Anwar embroiled
in more months of legal entrapment that diverts time and energy away
from leading the three-party Pakatan Rakyat opposition. It would also
give the Malaysian judiciary a thin tissue of respectability.
A then-24-year-old aide, Mohamad Bukyairy Azlan Saiful, made the charge
on June 29, 2008, shortly after Anwar had led Pakatan Rakyat coalition
to a historic sweep of five Malaysian states, winning 82 parliamentary
seats in 2008 national elections and breaking the ruling Barisan
Nasional coalition's two-thirds majority hold on parliament. He was
arrested at his home on July 16 of that year, by a contingent of 10
carloads of police commandos and was locked up overnight in a Kuala
Lumpur jail.
The trial, which began in February 2010, has been marred by what appear
to be egregious prosecutorial errors and a long series of prejudicial
rulings by High Court Judge Mohamad Zabidin Mohamad Diah. Critics say
the proceedings appear certain to once again tarnish Malaysia’s
reputation in international circles and play a role in destroying
whatever confidence there was in the country’s legal system. The case
has been condemned by the Geneva-based Inter-Parliamentary Union, 60
members of the Australian parliament, Amnesty International and Human
Rights Watch and prominent leaders from Commonwealth nations including
Paul Martin of Canada and others.
From the very beginning, when Saiful sought to get doctors to certify
that he had been sodomized, doubts began to surface. Saiful first went
to a private hospital, where a doctor found no evidence of penetration
and told him to go to a government hospital. At the first government
hospital, doctors also told him they had found no evidence of tearing or
scarring that would have indicated his anus had been penetrated. He was
forced to go to a third government hospital where he finally found a
physician willing to say the act had taken place.
In the intervening months, as the trial has droned on, an array other
doubtful factors have made the case look like it was manufactured to rid
the Malaysian political scene of one of its most charismatic figures,
and that the country’s court system, never regarded as independent since
former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad fired the Supreme Court in the
1980s, was bending over backwards to do the government’s bidding.
Gordon Trowell, in a report for the Inter-Parliamentary Union, pointed
out that the charges had been levied just as Anwar was making a
spectacular return to the political scene from a long period in the
political wilderness following his first sodomy trial in 1999, when he
was jailed for six years on charges that have been universally condemned
as rigged.
Mistakes made over DNA samples call into question whether the evidence
could survive in a rational court of law. Police officials have
testified that Saiful didn’t offer to be tested for DNA samples until 56
hours after the alleged incident, and he said he hadn’t defecated
during those two days, which could have corrupted the sample.
Other testimony indicated that the samples taken from Saiful were kept
unguarded in a police office for 43 hours without refrigeration before
they were turned over to the laboratory for analysis. Chemists testified
that as many as 10 different DNA samples had been found in Saiful’s
rear, making the whole analysis process suspect.
That any samples could be taken from Anwar is also questionable. Under
Malaysian law at the time, suspects could refuse to give DNA samples.
However, the Dewan Rakyat, Malaysia’s parliament, passed a law repealing
the consent requirement after Anwar’s arrest. In most courts, law
cannot be applied retroactively.
Although Anwar refused to give a DNA sample, items issued to him during
his overnight stay in jail were analyzed and a sample was found. Zabidin
in March handed Anwar a major victory by throwing out the purported DNA
evidence because it had been taken without his permission. However, a
week later, after the prosecution demanded it, Zabidin reversed himself
and said the evidence could after all be entered into the court despite
the retroactive nature of the law.
Then there is the series of meetings that Saiful has acknowledged in
court, at the home of then-Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and his
wife, Rosmah Mansor, on June 24, 2008, two days before the alleged
sodomy took place and others with Rosmah's close confidant, the former
track star Mumtaz Jaafar, as well.
Saiful also acknowledged meeting secretly twice with Rodwan Mohd Yusof, a
senior assistant police commissioner, before the alleged offence took
place. Rodwan became famous, or infamous, in Anwar's 1998 Sodomy I trial
when he illegally removed Anwar's DNA samples from forensic custody and
planted them on a mattress allegedly used by Anwar for a homosexual
dalliance. To protect the integrity of the prosecution's case, the
presiding judge, Augustine Paul, expunged the entire DNA evidence at the
time.
There is also the question of entrapment. Saiful testified that on the
day in question he had taken lubricant with him to Anwar’s condominium –
hardly the act of an innocent aide who had no idea that the then
63-year-old Anwar was about to jump him for unnatural sex. Surveillance
cameras in filmed the former aide in a lift in the building but Anwar
said he was having a meeting with a group of economists at the time
Saiful allegedly showed up.
But the fact that Saiful went to the condo with lubricant in his pocket,
whether he got in or not, is ample indication that he intended to try
to lure the opposition leader into a compromising position. It would be
questionable whether he tried to do that on his own, and it would
dovetail rather smoothly with his meetings with Najib, Rosmah, and the
law enforcement officials who put Anwar in jail in 1999.
Trowell in his report called pointed out a flock of other discrepancies.
Abdul Gani Patail, the main prosecutor in the 1998 sodomy proceedings
that were thoroughly discredited, has been involved in the present case
at a time when he was being investigated by the Malaysian
Anti-Corruption Agency following allegations of fabricating evidence.
There was an “almost systematic rejection of all defense applications
for disclosure of prosecution evidence, which it would need in order to
mount the defense,”
There was also the fact that Saiful was having a sexual liaison with
Farah Azlina Latif, a female member of the prosecution team, which
should have further disqualified him as a complaining witness.
The defense and prosecution have both finished presenting evidence and
the opposing sides are scheduled to submit their oral summaries on Dec. 8
and 9. After that the judge will probably take a month or so to deliver
his decision. If convicted, Anwar is certain to appeal. Whether he will
be allowed bail will again remains to be seen. The process will thus
probably go on for an indefinite period.
Unfortunately, what the evidence has shown most clearly is not that
Anwar was guilty or not guilty of having what the government termed
“unnatural consensual sex” with his former aide. It is rather that the
trial was skewed so badly in the government’s favor that the opposition
leader demonstrably did not get a fair trial.