 |
| gani setan |
|
 |
| Executive Summary of the First Trial On 2 September, 1998 Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim, one of Malaysia's most popular political leaders, was dismissed from his position as Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister by the Prime Minister, Dato' Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad. On 3 September, 1998 Anwar was sacked as Deputy President and member of the country's ruling political party - the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO)- by the party president, Dr Mahathir. Many people were shocked not only by Anwar's dismissal but the bizarre reasons given by Dr Mahathir for the sacking. Dr Mahathir told the whole nation in no uncertain terms that his former Deputy was "a sodomist who also indulged in illicit sex." The immediate result of the unfair dismissal was a series of unprecedented vocal public demonstrations by ordinary people in the streets. In the context of the country's young political history, seldom has this kind of anger been seen before. Police action against the peaceful demonstrators was swift and brutal. Dr Mahathir continued to utter a continuous tirade of scandalous and libellous remarks against Anwar through manipulation of the mainstream media, the party machinery and certain state agencies. On 20 September, 1998 Anwar was detained under the notorious Internal Security Act, a law that provides for detention without trial. On 29 September, 1998 Anwar faced nine charges in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court. Another charge was preferred against Anwar in the Petaling Jaya Sessions Court. After the ten charges were read out by the Court interpreter to him, Anwar pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It was at the Sesions Court that Anwar revealed to the world at large the 'black eye' and the shocking news that he was beaten while under police custody. It turned out later, after deliberations by a Royal Commission of Inquiry, that his assailant was none other than the national police chief! The trial was subsequently transferred to the High Court by the Public Prosecutor. When the trial commenced on 2 November, 1998 before High Court judge Augustine Paul, ten charges were preferred against Anwar, but the Public Prosecutor decided to try Anwar on the first four charges first. The case is entitled PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v DATO SERI ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM (Criminal Trial Nos 45-48-98 & 45-47-98). The first four charges were tried jointly and were as follows: First Charge "That you, between 12 August 1997 and 18 August 1997, at the Official Residence of the Deputy Prime Minister, No 47, Damansara Road, in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, while being a Member of the administration, to wit, holding the post of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, committed corrupt practice whereby you had directed Dato Mohd Said bin Awang, Special Branch Director and Amir bin Junus, Special Branch Deputy Director II, Royal Malaysian Police, to obtain a written admission from Azizan bin Abu Bakar to deny sexual misconduct and sodomy committed by you for the purpose of protecting yourself against any criminal action or proceedings, and as a result of which Azizan bin Abu Bakar had thereby made a written admission dated 18 August, 1997 to the Prime Minister as directed, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 2(1), Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No 22/1970." Second Charge "That you, on or about 27 August 1997, at the Official Residence of the Deputy Prime Minister, No 47, Damansara Road, in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, while being a Member of the administration, to wit, holding the post of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, committed corrupt practice whereby you had directed Dato Mohd Said bin Awang, Special Branch Director and Amir bin Junus, Special Branch Deputy Director II, Royal Malaysian Police, to urge Azizan bin Abu Bakar to give a written public statement to deny sexual misconduct and sodomy committed by you for the purpose of protecting yourself against any criminal action or proceedings and as a result of which Azizan bin Abu Bakar had thereby given a written public statement as directed, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 2(1), Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No 22/ 1970." Third Charge "That you, between 12 August 1997 and 18 August 1997, at the Official Residence of the Deputy Prime Minister, No 47, Damansara Road, in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, while being a Member of the administration, to wit, holding the post of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, committed corrupt practice whereby you had directed Dato Mohd Said bin Awang, Special Branch Director and Amir bin Junus, Special Branch Deputy Director II, Royal Malaysian Police to obtain a written admission from Ummi Hafilda bte Ali to deny sexual misconduct and sodomy committed by you for the purpose of protecting yourself against any criminal action or proceedings, and as a result of which Ummi Hafilda bte Ali had thereby made a written admission dated 18 August 1997 to the Prime Minister as directed, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 2(1), Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No 22/1970." Fourth Charge "That you, on or about 27 August 1997, at the Official Residence of the Deputy Prime Minister, No 47, Damansara Road, in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, while being a Member of the administration, to wit, holding the post of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, committed corrupt practice whereby you had directed Dato Mohd Said bin Awang, Special Branch Director and Amir bin Junus, Special Branch Deputy Director II, Royal Malaysian Police, to urge Ummi Hafilda bte Ali to give a written public statement to deny sexual misconduct and sodomy committed by you for the purpose of protecting yourself against any criminal action or proceedings, and as a result of which Ummi Hafilda bte Ali had thereby given a written public statement dated 29 August 1997 as directed, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 2(1), Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No 22/1970." The Offence The offence that I was alleged to have committed is provided under section 2(1) of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance 1970. It states: "Any member of the administration, Parliament or State Legislative Assembly or any public officer, who commits a corrupt practice shall be liable to jail up to 14 years or fine up to RM20,000, or both." o The term "Member of the Administration" means, in relation to the Federation, a person holding office as Minister, Deputy Minister, Parliamentary Secretary or Political Secretary and, in relation to a State, a person holding a corresponding office in the State or holding office as member (other than an official of the Executive Council). This is provided under section 2(2) of Ordinance 22 read with Article 160(2) of the Federal Constitution. o The term "Corrupt Practice" means "any act done by an Member or officer referred to in subsection (1) in his capacity as such Member or officer, whereby he has used his public position or office for his pecuniary or other advantage; and without prejudice to the foregoing, in relation to a Member of a State Legislative Assembly includes any act which is contrary to the provision of sub-section (8) of section 2 of the Eighth Schedule of the Federal Constitution or the equivalent provision in the Constitution of a State. When the case commenced, the prosecution produced a list of 52 witnesses to buttress their case. Save for Azizan Abu Bakar and Ummi Hafilda Ali, most the witnesses for the prosecution were police officers and government servants. The DNA evidence, presented by expert witness Lim Kong Boon, and touted by the prosecution as its deadliest evidential arsenal yet against Anwar, was blown apart by four members of the defence team in one of the finest cross-examination on scientific evidence ever seen in the courts Malaysia. Then came the biggest bombshell in the trial - the amendment of the four charges on 12 January, 1999. The words "to deny sexual misconduct and sodomy committed by you for the purpose of protecting yourself from criminal action or proceedings" were deleted from the charges. The effect was that the prosecution didnt have to prove that Anwar had committed the alleged sexual offences; they only needed to prove that allegations were made against him. As this amendment came at the closing stages of the prosecution case it was vehemently objected to by the defence. Leading defence counsel Raja Aziz Addruse argued that the amendment was unjust and prejudicial as it was done at such a late stage, when Anwars name had already been tarnished. Further, counsel said, since the prosecution had been adducing evidence to show that Anwar had committed the alleged sexual misconduct and sodomy, the amendment was clearly prejudicial to Anwar. Raja Aziz reiterated: "Throughout the life of the mattress in this court, it has been suggested this was the scene of sexual misconduct. It was brought to court even before PW12 (chemist Lim Kong Boon) gave his report. Now that the findings of the chemist had been challenged severely, and if I may submit, very effectively, the prosecution now says that what they intend to prove in the amended charges concerns only the allegations. Anwars name and that of Shamsidar Taharin were smeared throughout the trial, and the prosecution now tells us that sodomy and sexual misconduct allegations are not a major part of the charges." In a press statement issued by Wan Azizah, Anwars wife, on the same day, she said: "What were the prosecutions motives in these amendments of the charges? Is this not an extension of the mala fide prosecution and political conspiracy that the defence had contended throughout. For Malaysians and the world, it does not matter. Anwar is vindicated. The prosecutions retreat into legal technicalities of their right to amend cannot mask the truth. They have set out to prove their allegations. They have failed. We are grateful to God for that." On 14 January, 1999 Justice Augustine Paul, created another perplexing precedent. He ordered that all evidence that had been adduced to prove or rebut the allegations of sexual misconduct and sodomy against Anwar be expunged. He further ordered the parties to focus on "corrupt practices". Again Raja Aziz objected, and urged the court to express regret over the prosecutions conduct in adducing prejudicial evidence, "now expunged, which led to injustice." Counsel added, "If an injustice has been done, it is the courts duty to see that remedial measures are taken." At the end of the prosecution case, the judge ruled that there was a case for the defence to answer. The trial proceeded to stage two, when defence witnesses gave evidence. Anwar, the first defence witness, spoke of the use of "the instruments of government" to frame him. He accused the police and the Attorney-Generals office of being involved in the fabrication of evidence against him. He spoke of the role of Ummi Hafilda Ali and Azizan Abu Bakar and how they were used by the "conspirators" to make damaging allegations against him and to give evidence in court against him. The star witness for the prosecution, Azizan, had given evidence that Anwar had obtained from him a written admission to deny sexual misconduct and sodomy. This was accepted by the judge. However, the fact that Azizan had admitted three times that he was not sodomised by Anwar while under cross-examination by Anwars counsel, Christopher Fernando, was ignored by the judge. A defence attempt to introduce the transcript of a tape recording of a conversation in London involving a key prosecution witness, Ummi Hafilda, which appeared to support the defence contention that there was a conspiracy, was blocked by the judge. The contents of two confidential Special Branch (police) reports introduced in court in order to show the existence of conspirators in Anwars party, UMNO, and who were out to topple him from power, were considered irrelevant by the judge. It was evident to everyone that from the commencement of the trial, the word irrelevant had become the judges signature tune. On Tuesday, 16 March, 1999 Anwar, obviously exasperated by the innumerable rulings against him by the judge in the trial, applied to disqualify Justice Augustine Paul from continuing to hear his case on the basis that he had been denied a fair trial by the judge. Anwar said, based on Justice Pauls rulings, the judge had pre-judged the issues, precluded the defence from presenting its case in full, expunged evidence in his favour and applied different standards to the prosecution and defence when admitting evidence. Anwar also accused the judge of interfering in his lawyers questioning of witnesses to the extent of (the judge) "himself taking on the mantle of the prosecution". To support his serious allegations, Anwar cited various rulings of the judge: "including those allowing the charges to be amended when it became clear to them (the prosecution) that they were unable to prove the truth of the allegations, and expunging the evidence on the allegations. Expunging it from the records, far from avoiding prejudice to me, was in fact, to the prejudice of my case and could not possibly be in the interest of justice. My counsel had advised me that they had not come across any other criminal case where a Court had expunged evidence upon allowing a charge to be amended. This must be the first case where the court does not consider the truth of allegations relevant to the issue of guilt and where it does not seem to be interested in ascertaining the truth. The judge had precluded the defence from establishing its case." Anwar further challenged the judges ruling to the effect that summaries of witnesses evidence must be given in advance to enable him (the judge) to rule on the issue of relevance. The former Deputy Prime Minister said this ruling was not only unusual but would have the effect of obliging the defence to disclose to the Court and the prosecution, in advance, the evidence to be adduced from the defence witnesses. According to Anwar, the judge, after hearing the summaries and arguments, had disallowed several witnesses from giving evidence. Anwar also cited the finding of contempt against one of his lawyers, Zainur Zakaria, who had filed an application to remove the two senior prosecutors, Datuk Abdul Gani Patail and Azahar Mohamed, on the ground that they sought to obtain fabricated evidence against him. Anwar also referred to his failure to obtain bail from the judge and the many questionable rulings made by the judge on hearsay evidence, especially evidence involving the Prime Minister and Inspector-General of Police, which the judge had disallowed. Anwar's criminal trial for "corrupt practices" lasted 77 days, making it the longest High Court trial in Malaysian legal history. On 14 April, 1999 Anwar was found guilty and sentenced to six years imprisonment on each of the four charges, the jail terms to run concurrently and to commence from the date of sentence. Anwar appealed to the Court of Appeal. On Saturday, 29 April, 2000 the three judges of the Court of Appeal, namely Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Lamin Yunus (the country's second highest-ranking judge after the Chief Justice), Dato Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and Dato Mokhtar Sidin, affirmed the decision of the trial judge. Lamin said: Lamin: "We are unanimous in our decision. All appeals are dismissed. I dont propose to read the judgment." Everyone was stunned by the remark of the presiding judge that he didnt propose to read the judgment. Raja Aziz Addruse stood up and asked Lamin whether what he heard from Lamin was indeed correct. The judge said yes. Anwar protested: "Can Your Lordship give some semblance of the grounds of decision? It is pertinent that I be given some understanding as to how you came to a decision in a particularly high-profile case such as this. "Let not the Court be a tool of the Executive, to legitimise political persecution. It is indeed very unfortunate." Anwar lodged another appeal, this time to the countrys highest court, the Federal Court, whose current head is the Chief Justice of Malaysia, Tun Eusoff Chin. The hearing date for this appeal has not been fixed as of today. The result of the Anwars first trial and appeal and the events surrounding them are a shocking indictment of the Malaysian judicial system! |
| Message: 17 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 11:44:08 -0800 From: Baharom Subject: No evidence Sukma sodomised Got this email from my cousin. Good factual explanation. Pls refer to the actual charges (tuduhan rasmi) and relate it to Dr Zahari's testimony yesterday. Pardon for the excessive use of the word "ass hole"but in the name of justice, it is warranted and called for. ============================== Finally a topic I can address with some authority! Let's see how many times I can use my favorite "A" word gratuitously.... . At yesterday's trial session, a pathologist Dr. Zahari Noor testified about his examination of Sukma's asshole (literal), and, based on his expertopinion, "no blunt" object passed through Sukma's asshole (literal) (i.e.,Sukma was not sodomized) . This is based on:. 1. Looking for evidence of scars and bruises typical of a "used" asshole(literal). 2. Examining Sukma's private parts for similar signs. 3. Puttin' on dem cold rubber gloves and inserting his finger(s) up Sukma's asshole (literal) to test for "grip" - Yup, still stronggrip lah. . Obviously this testimony is yet one out of many *facts* that point to the big conspiracy lie - so that asshole (figurative) Gani vehemently objected, claiming that it was irrelevant. Of course, dear Gani, it is irrelevant when it suits you - but it was relevant when you introduced new "evidence" during RE-EXAMINATION through Azizan's "testimony" of having his asshole (literal) violated by BOTH *SUKMA* and Anwar.. To cover his ass (figurative), the asshole (figurative) Gani then tried to pull the same stunt he did with Azizan's backtracking ("what I meant was*after* 1992...) and managed to get Dr. Zahari to agree that" penetrations" between 5 to 10 years ago would be difficult to detect. . Yes, said the good doctor, isolated penetration incidents, but repeated (habitual) penetration of the asshole (literal) would still leave signs even that long...... A fact which did not register with our favorite media asshole (figurative) A.K.J., who demonstrated his "leanings" by putting a bold headline on the page 4 Anwar Trial Story that reads "Medical Examination cannot detect sodomy 5 to10 years ago" . Thank you assholes (figurative) Gani and Kadir Jasin. Now they'll try to weavea story about how Anwar sodomized Sukma 5 to 10 years ago. EXCEPT...Less we forget, The ONE and ONLY one charge of Anwar sodomizing Sukma reads:. *********************. That you on one night in *APRIL 1998* at the Official DPM Residence at 47 Jalan Damansara, committed a carnal act against the order of nature with oneSukma Darmawan Saasmitatmadja.... . **********************. Yes, Anwar was charged with sodomizing Sukma as RECENT AS APRIL1998!. When the good doctor examined Sukma's asshole barely 5 months after being sodomized, there was NO SIGN OF SODOMY! Now, I know I'm not supposed to say that the charge is fabricated because it would offend some logical purists... especially in this case, since there may still be a logical possibility: . The only way Anwar can sodomize Sukma in 1998 and not leave "stretchmarks" is if Anwar's penis is not larger than a matchstick! - Hey, logical possibility, right? Either that, or the above charge was a SIMPLE MISTAKE TYPO and should have read 1988 or something... ;-). Still on the issue of assholes (both literal and figurative),why is it that Sukma was subjected to the obviously humiliating test of having his asshole (literal) introduced to Dr. Zahari's rubber-coated fingers, and Azizan NOT UNDERGOING A SIMILAR EXAMINATION - Recall both the asshole (figurative) Azizan's and compatriot asshole (figurative) SAC Musa Hassan's testimonies that AZIZAN WAS NOT SUBJECTED TO ANY MEDICAL EXAMINATION.. Why? Apparently because Azizan readily admitted (while waving the Surah Yasin) to having his asshole (literal) violated by Anwar not less than15 times (that comes to about 3 times a month since these incidents were supposed to have occurred between May to Sept 1992 - fantastic!) - While Sukma tried to deny his grave sins.... Speaking of assholes (figurative), I nominate Judge Augustine Paul for the "Asshole (both literal and figurative) Of The Week" award, for not allowing any cross-examining questions on the blood-taking episode when it was the prosecution who introduced a witness who took Anwar's blood -Apparently in the judge's wisdom, Anwar's condition during the time of taking blood is not relevant and the results of the blood test are not relevant!. Defence was only allowed to ask on the specific act of taking blood, not the circumstances around it.... bullcrap!. Ah, but I am also reminded by learned colleagues that Judge Augustine Paul is to be regarded in high esteem. You see, he is an authority on "Evidence" having written a book about it.. And obviously he must be a very, very, smart man because the Attorney-General had him promoted from Judicial Commissioner (read: high court judge on probation) in Melaka (incidently homestate of Mohtar himself) straight up to HIGH COURT in KUALA LUMPUR - . Not just any highcourt, but CRIMINAL High court - which means he by-passed Civil, Corporate, and Special Powers. . And his elevation was as recent as May 1998- from probationary judge to judge presiding over the criminal trial of the century -Three cheers for uber wunderkid Augustine! but at the end of it all, who am I, but your average asshole (figurative), to question the independence and wisdom of Malaysia's judiciary?. I'm told this independence still exists - right up there where the sun don't shine... |
| From: suan Newsgroups: soc.culture.malaysia Date: 20 August 1999 21:00 Subject: Augustine Paul : A Monster of a Judge In case we forget, this serves as a reminder of one of the most biased and corrupted judge in Malaysian legal history, a monster of a judge who sold his soul to the devil and the nation into tyranny for the sake of his career. The judge is of course none other than Augustine Paul who convicted Dato Seri Anwar to 6 years imprisonment on the basis of the most flimsy of evidence ever tendered in court. The hallmark of his trial was the cry “IRRELEVANT” which served as the catch-all for any evidence tendered by the defense which appeared to poke holes in the prosecution. He refused to allow a taped evidence to be tendered in court. He refused to allow 10 defense witnesses to testify on the basis of irrelevance. If this isn’t pre-judging, what is? Whether the evidence is relevant or not is for the court to decide AFTER hearing the evidence, not before. This judge could at the end of the day say that his judgement was based on all available evidence tendered to the court but of course he had carefully filtered through and admitted only those which did not destroy the prosecution’s case. Augustine Paul also illegally restricted the defense team from putting together a creditable defense. At the onset, he disallowed the defense of political conspiracy, saying that it was fanciful. Who is he to pre-judge the issue before even hearing the evidence? Was he trying to protect his master? Political conspiracy was altogether plausible given that the defendant was a politician who had fallen from grace with the PM, yet this monster had the audacity to wave aside the most crucial defense strategy and in doing so brushed all principles of jurisprudence aside in his determination to find the defendant guilty. Although he allowed police conspiracy even this was taken away at the end when the weight of evidence threatened to prove the defense’s case. In a highly prejudicial move this crooked judge allowed the prosecution to amend the charges late in the trial, making it easier to obtain a conviction. The nature of the amendment was scandalous, in effect saying that the prosecution did not have to prove that Anwar committed a crime to convict him for attempting to cover up a “crime” that they could not prove he committed. Illogical and irrational, but the crooked judge allowed it. It was clear from the start that Augustine Paul was not interested in finding out the truth but only in finding the defendant guilty. His court could not even be called a kangaroo court, no that would be according it too much dignity. In truth Augustine Paul ran a debauched circus. It would take far too long to catalogue all the abuses that this pariah judge inflicted on the rule of law and principles of justice in the Anwar trial. Suffice it to say that Augustine Paul was a monster of a judge who subverted justice, sold away his principles and human dignity and sold the nation to tyranny. Malaysians should remember Augustine Paul well and spit on his grave. -- Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm). |
 |
 |
| Monday November 19 Return of the old judicial (dis)order Steven Gan 8:37pm, Mon: Abdul Gani Patail is today tapped as Malaysia’s top legal officer. The legal fraternity, and the rest of the country, cannot but be flabbergasted by this astounding appointment. This is, after all, the man - who as chief prosecutor in former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim’s trials - was unable to get the dates of the alleged sodomy acts right, not once but twice. This is the man who was responsible for parading the infamous semen-stained mattress during the court hearings. More importantly, this is the man who the Federal Court said should provide “some answers to the allegations on the fabrication of evidence” when it threw out the Zainur Zakaria’s contempt of court case. The news of Gani’s appointment as attorney-general came only weeks after human rights lawyer Raja Aziz Addruse lamented the possible return of the old order in the judiciary. “We may be in the process of seeing history repeating itself. The country will be the loser once again if it does. It is indeed a great pity. Instead of going forward, we have now taken a step back,” wrote Raja Aziz in the latest issue of the Bar Council’s journal Insaf. Raja Aziz was referring to the appointment of justice Ahmad Fairuz, instead of the more senior and capable justice Malik Ahmad as the chief judge of Malaya, the person in charge of the peninsula’s High Courts. His article, originally meant as an editorial for the journal, eventually appeared as an opinion piece after some members of the council succumbed to a bout of cold feet. The editor of Insaf went on to criticise Ahmad’s performance as a judge, including when as an Appellate Court judge, he dismissed lawyer Zainur’s appeal against the contempt verdict delivered upon him. Zainur was convicted by High Court judge S Augustine Paul for contempt after he filed an application on behalf of Anwar Ibrahim to disqualify Abdul Gani and his colleague, Azahar Mohamad, as prosecutors in the corruption trial against him. The two were allegedly involved in a move to fabricate evidence of sexual misconduct against Anwar by extracting evidence from his tennis partner S Nallakaruppan, who was detained for illegal possession of firearms which is punishable by death. Abdul Gani and Azahar had allegedly tried to implicate Nalla as an accomplice to Anwar's sexual misconduct offences and offered to lessen Nalla’s sentence if he gave evidence against the jailed deputy prime minister. When Zainur failed to apologise to the court for filing the application, justice Paul found him in contempt - an act which according to the Federal Court violated “proper procedures”. Men of disrepute It is still unclear why Attorney-General Ainum Mohamed Saaid resigned after less then a year at the helm. Officially, it is for “health reasons”. However, observers believed otherwise. Especially after the sudden fall from grace of Ainum’s mentor and former finance minister Daim Zainuddin. But one thing is certain. Over the past few months, the government is becoming more and more apprehensive over a judiciary that is rightly showing its independence. Indeed, Raja Aziz is right. Where appointments are politically motivated, it is not the confidence of the public in the judiciary alone that is undermined. “Good judges, too, will feel no pride in being part of the judicial system where neither merit nor seniority is recognised,” he warned. The same can be said about the attorney-general, who alone will decide which cases should be prosecuted. Major changes are being made in the judicial order. We are no doubt reverting to the bad old days when the judiciary was in great disrepute. The promises early this year - about how Chief Justice Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah and Ainum would clean up the justice system - appeared to be no more than a mirage. One is gone. The other will follow soon when his term expires on retirement next year. And in their place will be men and women with little integrity, intellect and ability. |
| Monday November 19 Gov't names Anwar's prosecutor as top legal officer 4:20pm, Mon: (AFP) - The government today appointed Abdul Gani Patail, head of the prosecution division in the Attorney General's Chambers, as the country's top legal officer effective Jan 1. Abdul Gani, who takes up the reins on Jan 1, replaces Attorney General Ainum Mohamad Saaid, whose resignation takes effect from the same date amid a long-standing thyroid problem. "The appointment takes effect on Jan 1 but Abdul Gani will assume the duties of the Attorney General once Ainum goes on leave soon," Bernama news agency quoted Rais Yatim, the minister in charge of legal affairs, as saying. But Abdul Gani's appointment immediately drew fire from the opposition. Since 1998, Abdul Gani, 46, had been in the limelight as a leading member of the team that prosecuted jailed former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim. Rais said Abdul Gani would initially take over as acting Attorney General when Ainum goes on leave prior to her resignation. "The Prime Minister (Mahathir Mohamad) has agreed to Abdul Gani Patail taking over the duties of Attorney-General from Ainum," he said. Rais said the request to quit from Ainum - the first woman to hold the post in the country - had been accepted by the government with effect from Monday. "She has informed me and Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, and I have discussed the matter with the premier," Rais was quoted by the New Straits Times as saying. 'Controversial appointment' DAP chairman Lim Kit Siang was critical of Abdul Gani's selection, describing it as "most controversial". "The people had hoped for a new era of the Malaysian judiciary and administration of the law and his appointment seems to bring the past back in the present." "His appointment will further polarise the people - between those who had hoped for a new era of administration of the law, and those who want to see a reversion from the past," he told AFP. Ainum, 55, took up the job on January 1 this year on a two-year contract. Rais dismissed persistent rumours that Ainum was under investigation dating back to her time as Securities Commission deputy chief executive, when she was in charge of market supervision and enforcement. "I categorically say that there is no investigation against her, none whatsoever in the past and at present. She leaves the service without any pigmentation of a stain," he said. "It's purely for health reasons." Ainum's appointment to succeed Mohtar Abdullah, who led the prosecution team against Anwar, had been welcomed by the legal profession as she had gained a reputation for her integrity, intellect and ability. |
 |
| Aliran Media Statement/Letter to the Editor http://www.malaysia.net/aliran/ Aliran utterly dismayed with appointment of new AG Aliran is utterly dismayed and disappointed with the appointment of Datuk Abdul Gani Patail as the new Attorney-General succeeding the current holder of the post, Datuk Seri Ainum Mohd Saaid. It is an appointment that is not likely to enhance the prestige of our system of justice or encourage public confidence in the fairness of prosecution. Abdul Gani comes with a dark cloud hanging over his head regarding his controversial conduct concerning the Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Nallakaruppan cases, as alleged by Manjit Singh in his hand-delivered letter to then Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah on 12 October 1998. According to this letter (which is on public record and easily available and reproduced in Aliran Monthly, Vol 21(6) pp 7-8), it was alleged that Abdul Gani was involved in a questionable attempt to elicit evidence against Anwar Ibrahim in a way that would prejudice his case. It is suggested that Abdul Gani had wanted Nallakaruppan to bear false witness against Anwar Ibrahim. A totally-shattered Manjit agonised in his letter: "I was shocked that Dato Gani even had the gall to make such a suggestion to me. He obviously does not know me. I do not approve of such extraction of evidence against ANYONE, not even, or should I say least of all, a beggar picked up off the streets. A man's life, or for that matter even his freedom, is not a tool for prosecution agencies to use as a bargaining chip. No jurisprudential system will condone such an act. "It is blackmail and extortion of the highest culpability and my greatest disaapointment is that a once independent agency that I worked with some 25 years ago and of which I have such satisfying memories has descended to such levels in the creation and collection of evidence. To use the death threat as a means to the extortion of evidence that is otherwise not there (why else make such a demand?) It is unforgivable and surely must in itself be a crime, leave alone a sin, of the greatest magnitude. Whether his means justify the end that he seeks are matters that Dato Gani will have to wrestle with within his own conscience." Further, the Federal Court in the Zainur Zakaria case never cleared or exonerated Gani and in fact raised very serious concerns about prosecutorial propriety. His appointment begs the question: What is integrity all about? Does it amount to anything in our system of justice? A person without a tainted character would be the best person qualified to hold this high position. Such a person would bring respect to his office and win the confidence of the public. Justice itself has fallen victim with this appointment. Whatever hope there may have been for change has been brutally reversed. Sadly, it is back to the bad old days. This appointment has starkly emphasised the government's complete contempt for public opinion and for our shared values in the notion of fairness and justice. P. Ramakrishnan President 20 November 2001 |
| Spirit of Truth Gani Patail as AG- Mahathir's Fright and Weakness Exposed Wed Nov 21 07:55:15 2001 The fear in Mahathir's heart is frightening him like hell, this is confirmed by the appointment of the most immoral, corrupt and idiotic legal officer as the AG. There cannot be a more worthless chief legal office than Gani Patail, his filthy and pariah track record, particularly in the Anwar Ibrahim faked sham trial, his sinful negotiations with lawyer Manjeet Singh, to trade false confession from Nalla, to incriminate Anwar, makes Gani the scoundrel of the century and a perverted eunuch of Mahathir. Appointment of Gani as AG confirms Mahathir's desperation and weakness It is the fear of being prosecuted for his political crimes that Mahathir had to appointment this legal pariah, so that he can be enslaved to obey any orders to safeguard himself from being prosecuted. His fear has blinded his virtue, obscured his rationale, has confounded his thoughts, for a frightened man loses his mind and commits anything to alley his fear. Such is the despicable status of a selfish, capricious, imperious despot, to ensure that he secures the complete loyalty of the AG he had to trade the honour and respect of the legal profession by appointing this idiot to obey his commands. This appointment will remain forever as one of the most stupid acts of a PM, senile, frightened, and paranoid over his own insecurity. Mahathir loses his senses due to his sins Mahathir, a despot of the worst type, unprincipled and avaricious, is caught in his own trap of sins and crimes. His mental faculties benumbed by the fear of his sins, his conscience clouded by his fright, his thoughts disturbed by his own conscience, is now suffering severe mental irregularities. He has become so rotten in his head that he cannot discern the worthlessness of Gani Patail, unable to understand the devastating effects of employing a highly corrupt and stupid AG. Such a blow to his mind is nothing but the work of God, to make a sinning despot stupid , so that he will continue to commit blunders that will finally consume him. Gani Patail - a severe blow to nations legal profession By appointing this moron as the AG, the legal system of the country has been thrown into disarray, its credibility devastated, making Malaysia into a laughing stock. AG's office is now a wretched conspiracy center for Mahathir to remain in power. The nation has become a pariah state, with idiots like Gani Patail playing eunuch to Mahathir, so that his opponents can be falsely charged, court cases can be faked, judges can be intimidated and enslaved to write judgment according to Mahathir. Gani is a servile effete effeminate, willing to lick arse and swallow shit to get to the top. For a man like him, a bird brain, only arse licking can bring him to the top. It is another gloomy period for Malaysia, Mahathir has again proved his stupidity. Let us all reject this idiot who has through evil machination scrambled to the top, a job which he is not fit at all. Let us pray that God will, in due time teach Mahathir and eunuch AG, for a proven liar will ultimately fail and be brought to justice. Spirit of Truth |
| Opposition, rights groups slam appointment of top legal officer KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 20 - Malaysian opposition leaders and rights activists on Tuesday slammed the appointment of the country's new top legal officer as a controversial and politically motivated move. The government Monday appointed Abdul Gani Patail, head of the prosecution division in the Attorney General's Chambers, to replace attorney general Ainum Mohamad Saaid, who has resigned for health reasons. Abdul Gani, who will assume the post on January 1, was quoted by Bernama news agency Tuesday as saying he was honoured to be given the trust and confidence to lead the Attorney General's Chambers. But Lim Kit Siang, leader of the opposition Democratic Action Party, called the move "the most controversial appointment for the post of the country's top legal officer in the 44-year history of the nation". Since 1998, Abdul Gani, 46, has been in the limelight as a leading member of the team that prosecuted former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim for corruption and sodomy. Lim said the propriety and wisdom behind Abdul Gani's appointment was questionable due to his role in Anwar's highly controversial trials, which led to his being sentenced to a total of 15 years' jail. In a statement, he challenged Abdul Gani for greater accountability in "a new era of public confidence in the system of justice or to a retrogression to the dark judicial and legal age of the recent past". Rights groups voiced concerns that Abdul Gani's appointment would further increase people's distrust of the judicial system. Cynthia Gabriel, executive director of the Malaysian People's Voice (Suaram), said his appointment was "politically motivated" and could "end all credibility efforts in redeeming the judiciary." "The criteria for selection of an attorney general is important and a person must have a respectable track record of handling cases, a good sense of judgement and has to be impartial," she said. "Abdul Gani, from his past track record, lacks those traits." Elizabeth Wong, secretary general of the National Human Rights Society, said the appointment could signal further crackdowns on opposition parties and government critics. "Given his particular history of involvement in politically motivated trials, we would be very concerned about further prosecution, perhaps with even more vigour, of the opposition and pro-reform movements," she said. However, Elizabeth said she hoped her concerns would be unfounded and that Abdul Gani would discharge his duties in "a fair and open manner, and in accordance with international standards". "That would be his biggest challenge -- to move away from having a judiciary that has been perceived as unfair," she said. Rights group Aliran said "justice itself has fallen victim" with the appointment of Abdul Gani who "comes with a dark cloud hanging over his head" following his role in Anwar's trials. "Whatever hope there may have been for change has been brutally reversed. Sadly, it is back to the bad old days," it added. [AFP] |
 |
| Malaysiakini Tuesday November 20 Chorus of disapproval greets Abdul Gani's appointment as AG Tong Yee Siong 7:45pm, Tue: Abdul Gani Patail should answer two allegations of obstructing justice during his tenure as the prosecution division chief at the Attorney-General's Chambers before assuming the post of AG, said an opposition leader today. DAP national chairperson Lim Kit Siang said the Parliament should summon Abdul Gani before the House to answer those allegations. "The allegations are threatening a witness to fabricate evidence against [former deputy prime minister] Anwar Ibrahim and not prosecuting [International Trade and Industry Minister] Rafidah Aziz [for abuse of power]," said Lim in a statement. It is crucial for Parliament to find out whether Abdul Gani is committed to restoring public confidence in the judiciary or regressing to "the dark legal age of recent past", he added. Abdul Gani's appointment was announced yesterday. He will take over as the new AG on Jan 1 following the resignation of Ainum Mohamed Saaid, Malaysia's first woman to hold the post. Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution states that the AG has full power to "initiate, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence". Political conspiracy The Sabah-born Abdul Gani drew attention, both domestic and international, when he led the prosecuting team in Anwar's corruption and sodomy cases heard in 1998 and 1999 respectively. Anwar was subsequently found guilty of both offences and jailed for a total of 15 years. However, he claimed to be a victim of the political conspiracy orchestrated by Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, a charge the government denies. In late 1998, during the corruption trial of Anwar, the former deputy premier's tennis partner S Nallakaruppan, through his lawyer, claimed to have been threatened by Abdul Gani and another senior prosecutor, Azahar Mohamed, to testify against Anwar. Anwar's defence counsel Zainur Zakaria had applied to dismiss both the prosecutors but it was rejected by the High Court. Zainur was subsequently convicted for contempt of court and sentenced to a three-month jail term. However, in June this year, the Federal Court quashed the initial ruling on Zainur and said Abdul Gani should have clarified the allegation against him of threatening witnesses. During the corruption trial, Anwar also claimed that in 1995, Abdul Gani wrote in a document to him that there was substantial evidence to prosecute Rafidah who was alleged to have awarded her son-in-law with preferential bumiputra shares. However, Rafidah denied the allegation and was never charged in court. Justice a victimLim today questioned Abdul Gani's credibility to be the new AG, naming him as one of those responsible for tarnishing the image of the Malaysian judiciary. "The propriety of Abdul Gani's appointment was most debatable because of his role in reducing our judiciary to an international scandal which has invited an avalanche of adverse criticisms," he said. He said public concern about the fragility of judicial and legal reforms "has now reached a crescendo with Abdul Gani's appointment as the new AG". Last December, Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah and Ainum took office as the Chief Justice and AG respectively, prompting positive remarks from civil groups and opposition that the appointments could raise public confidence in the judiciary. However, citing health reasons, Ainum tended her resignation last week. Dzaiddin's term will expire next year on retirement. Meanwhile, Anwar's wife, Keadilan president Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail said Abdul Gani's appointment was a promotion as he successfully prosecuted her husband. "I am sure he (Mahathir) has a hand in this as this appointment speaks volumes of the Malaysian judiciary," she added. Penang-based social movement Aliran said it was "utterly dismayed and disappointed" with the appointment of Abdul Gani as the new A-G. "His appointment begs the question: What is integrity all about?" questioned its president P Ramakrishnan in a statement. "Justice itself has fallen victim with this appointment. Whatever hope there may have been for change is brutally reversed. Sadly, it is back to the bad old days," he added. Meanwhile Human Rights watchdog Suaram said the appointment was politically motivated and was "a move that will not lend credence towards efforts to redeem the judiciary". Suaram executive director Cynthia Gabriel said in a statement that Abdul Gani's appointment could turn the clock back to the dark ages of administration of law,experienced by Malaysians under the leadership of former AG Mohtar Abdullah. |
| Gani Patail as AG - Parliament should insist on accuntability ------------------------------------------------ Media Statement by DAP National Chairman Lim Kit Siang in Petaling Jaya on Tuesday, 20th November 2001: Parliament should summon Gani Patail to accountability, not only on two personal episodes, but also whether he is committed to a new era of public confidence in the system of justice or a retrogression to the dark judicial and legal age of the recent past ========================================================== Datuk Abdul Gani Patail's elevation as Attorney-General is the most controversial appointment for the post of the country's top legal officer in the 44-year history of the nation. It has caused nation-wide dismay, not only in the legal community, the civil society but also among the people at large as to whether Malaysia can proceed forward to a new era of public confidence in the just rule of law and a truly independent judiciary or whether the country is to retrogress to the recent dark age for the system and cause of justice. For the past eleven months, Malaysians had high hopes for a fresh beginning towards a new era for the administration of law and system of justice but Gani's appointment seems to have brought the past back to the present. When Tan Sri Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah took office as the new Chief Justice of the Federal Court last December, he won the hearts and raised the hopes of Malaysians with his courageous admission that his first priority was to restore public and international confidence in the judiciary. Recent mounting concerns about the fragility of judicial and legal reforms necessary to fully restore national and international confidence in the system and cause of justice, the rule of law, an independent judiciary and bar have all reached a crescendo with Gani's appointment as the new Attorney-General. This is because Gani had been fully associated with the dark age of the system and cause of justice in Malaysia, which all Malaysians, including the present Chief Justice and the judiciary, want to put to rest permanently and not be resuscitated to haunt the national landscape. The propriety and wisdom of Gani's appointment as Attorney-General are most debatable not because he is not talented but for his role in reducing the Malaysian system and cause of justice into a national and international scandal until December last year, the subject of an avalanche of adverse criticisms by the international legal and judicial community, culminating in the damning report, "Justice in Jeopardy: Malaysia 2000" - a joint report of four reputable international legal and judicial organisations in April 2000. In its "Conclusions and Summary of Recommendations", the report "Justice in Jeopardy: Malaysia 2000" stated: "Overall, however, our clear impression is that there are well-founded grounds for concern as to the proper administration of justice in Malaysia in cases which are of particular interest, for whatever reason, to the government. Plainly, this is only a small proportion of the total number of cases which arise, but they are of vital importance to the well-being of the entire system of justice in Malaysia. The central problem appears to lie in the actions of the various branches of an extremely powerful executive, which has not acted with due regard for the other essential elements of a free and democratic society based on the just rule of law. Such due regard requires both a clear grasp of the concept of the separation of powers and also an element of restraint by all branches of the executive. These have not always been evident. There must be a truly independent judiciary, fully prepared at all times to do justice for all, whether strong or weak, rich or poor, high or low, politically compliant or outspoken. There must be an autonomous bar which is allowed to render its services freely so as to enable it to fulfil the purposes set out in its governing statute. Repression of fundamental liberties should be maintained only if and to the extent that is absolutely necessary. There is real cause for concern in all of these areas." Is Gani as the new Attorney-General prepared to adopt this statement as his guiding motto to fully restore public confidence in a just rule of law and a truly independent judiciary, or have Malaysians to revert to the recent past where, as the report stated succintly, "There is real cause for concern in all of these areas"? The propriety and wisdom of Gani's appointment as Attorney-General is not only because of his role as head of the prosecution division in the AG's Chambers in the years which plunged the Malaysian system of justice into national and international disrepute, as in the prosecution of Lim Guan Eng, Anwar Ibrahim, Karpal Singh and Irene Fernandez, but also because he has still to clear himself of severe stricture by the Federal Court for his own personal conduct in the Zainur Zakaria contempt case as well as the police report for corruption which Anwar Ibrahim had lodged against him. On 30th November 1998, Justice S. Augustine Paul convicted Anwar Ibrahim's lawyer, Zainur Zakaria, for contempt of court and sentenced him to three months jail after ruling that Anwar's application to disqualify two senior prosecutors, Dato' Abdul Ghani Patail and Azahar bin Mohamed in the corruption trial was baseless. The application was based on a statutory declaration made by lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon dated 9 November 1998 and a letter he wrote to the Attorney-General dated 12 October 1998 accusing Gani and Azahar of threatening his client, Datuk S. Nallakaruppan, and asking him to fabricate evidence against Anwar. On 27th June 2001, the Federal Court comprising Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, Justice Tan Sri Datuk Steve Shim, Federal Court Justices Datuk Abdul Malek Ahmad and Datuk Haidar Mohd Noor freed Zainur from the contempt of court conviction. In his judgement, Shim said Gani should have given his personal explanation on the allegation that he had threatened Nallakaruppan to fabricate evidence against Anwar. On the other case, Anwar lodged a police report in July 1999 against Gani and others alleging interference of justice in shielding the Minister for International Trade and Industry from being prosecuted in court on five corruption charges. Anwar referred to a document of the Prosecution Division, Attorney General's Office dated 14 March, 1995 signed by Gani, which was handed him when he was Deputy Prime Minister by Attorney General, Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah towards the end of 1995. The document, whose veracity had never been denied even when I raised it in Parliament in July 1999, clearly stated that there was prima facie basis to prosecute Dato Paduka Rafidah Aziz, the Minister for International Trade and Industry (MITI) on five counts of corruption under Section 2(2),Ordinance 22, 1970. Anwar said in the police report that the Attorney General had been satisfied with the investigations carried out by the Anti-Corruption Agency and was ready to prosecute Rafidah Aziz in connection with the approval of preferential bumiputera shares to her son-in-law. In the interests of public accountability, transparency and integrity particularly for the post of the highest legal officer of the land, Gani should give a full and satisfactory accounting of these two episodes before assuming the office of Attorney-General, which carries the awesome powers of sole and full discretionary prosecutorial powers "to initiate, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence" under Article 145 (3) of the Constitution. Parliament should do its duty to summon Gani to appear before it to furnish full accountability not only on these two episodes - the serious allegations of threatening Nallakaruppan to fabricate evidence against Anwar Ibrahim and interfering in obstructing the process of justice in not prosecuting Rafidah Aziz - but also with regard to his policy approach as to whether as Attorney-General he is committed to a new era of public confidence in the system and cause of justice in Malaysia or a regression to the dark judicial and legal age of recent past. - Lim Kit Siang - |
| PRM OPPOSES GANI PATAIL AS AG Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM) views the appointment of Dato' Abdul Gani Patail as the Attorney General of the country as an obvious political reward from PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad for his services in the politically motivated trial of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. Dato’ Gani's controversial role in this trial implicated him in allegations of active involvement in the very serious criminal offence of threatening a particular potential witness Dato' Nallakaruppan with the death sentence to in order to obtain fabricated evidence against Anwar Ibrahim. In most countries, a public servant committing this offence would be jailed for a long time. These allegations put on oath by Anwar Ibrahim were never challenged by Dato’ Gani by affidavit or by oral sworn evidence. His failure to challenge these allegations led the Federal Court speaking through the Chief Justice of Sabah and Sarawak Steven Shim to say that " we are left with the unenviable position of questioning the motive or motives of Dato’ Gani Patail ". ( see Zainur Zakaria v P.P. [2001] 3 CLJ 673. How can Dr. Mahathir consider such a man suitable for the high position of Attorney General when such a serious question mark hangs over his professional conduct and integrity? We can only conclude that Dr. Mahathir wants to have a compromised and pliant Attorney General who will do his bidding as has clearly happened in the past as evidenced by the Anwar Ibrahim trial and other politically motivated prosecutions. The appointment of Gani Patail as Attorney General, not long after the appointment of Datuk Fairuz as Chief Judge, demonstrates amply that Dr. Mahathir has no intention of ensuring that the Attorney general is independent and with integrity. Dr Syed Husin Ali PRM President 21st November 2001 |