justice ripin jaka

The Judge's Summary Judgment on the Anwar Ibrahim Trial Guilty Verdict

Elements to be proved in the charge under section 377B Penal Code:

1) that the accused sodomised the victim (Azizan Abu Bakar);
2) he did it voluntarily;
3) penetration occurred.

The prosecution's case rests principally on the evidence of Azizan. The evidence of the defence's case is of alibi and conspiracy to fabricate evidence.

In order to establish whether the elements have been proved, it is necessary to consider the credibility of Azizan. Azizan gave evidence for a total of 10 days and was cross-examined aggressively and extensively. He came out unscathed.

There is also evidence for cross-examination of Senior Assistant Commissioner Musa Hassan that Azizan has made five prior consistent statements. This enhances his credibility. There is no necessity for Azizan to lie, as he has nothing but everything to lose by coming out with this complaint. In addition, his evidence is consistent with confessions of Sukma (Dermawan Sasmitaat Madja) which I have found to be voluntary.

I am also convinced of the truth of what is stated in the confession. This finding is consistent with the fact that Sukma had used this confession in his mitigation when he had pleaded guilty earlier in session court when he was charged for an offence under Section 377D. It is therefore my finding that evidence of Azizan is credible.

With regard to corroboration and evidence of Azizan, it is sufficiently supported and corroborated by the confession of Sukma. Although it is a confession of the accused, it is a piece of substantive evidence. It can therefore be used against the first accused. To that extent it corroborates the evidence of Azizan against both accused.

The evidence of Azizan is also corroborated by the conduct of the first accused which is:

Firstly, the first accused requested to SAC Musa to stop investigations into the allegations against him; secondly, in asking Azizan to lie about the declaration that he had made, that is P5. With regard to the second accused, there are two charges, namely for abetting for sodomy and sodomy.

There is ample evidence to establish these two charges in the confession made by Sukma which has been supported by Azizan's evidence.

The defence of the first accused is one of alibi, conspiracy and conspiracy to fabricate evidence. If these defences are accepted, then the charges of the second accused will also collapse. In his alibi defence, the first accused must show that he was at a different place from Jan 1 to March 31, 1993. No such evidence was adduced as to his whereabouts for this period of Jan 1 to Feb 12,1993. Therefore, the evidence of alibi fails.

With regard to the defence of the second accused, that offence of sodomy could not have taken place because his apartment was under renovation. No evidence was adduced to show when renovation works started and were completed. Even though there is evidence to show that renovation works were in fact carried out, these findings do not create any reasonable doubt that the offence was not committed in that apartment.

Even if the divan and mattress were not delivered until Feb 12, 1993, to my mind it does not mean that there was no other bed and mattress.

With regard to the defence of fabrication, I am satisfied that the evidence on record does not support the defence.

The evidence of Tun Haniff Omar in the question asked by the first accused (Anwar Ibrahim) on the possibility of police blackmailing him indicates that the first accused had something to worry about.

The evidence of Azizan when he said the first accused asked him to lie in the declaration when the first accused asked Musa to stop investigations against him militates against the defence of fabrication of evidence.

I am therefore satisfied that the defence had not raised any reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. For the above reason and after considering the circumstances of the case and evidence adduced, I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case against both accused beyond reasonable doubt.

I therefore find both the accused guilty of the charges.

Judge Arifin Jaka
High Court

Thursday June 14

Azizan 'a truthful and credible witness': justice Ariffin
K Kabilan

10:43pm, Thu: Azizan Abu Bakar, the star witness in the sodomy trial involving former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim, was a reliable and truthful witness, said High Court judge Arifin Jaka in his written judgment which was delivered today.

“I have dealt with the issue of Azizan’s credibility in depth and my finding that he is a truthful and credible witness still stands as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar,” said Arifin (photo) in his 212-page judgment.

Today's written judgment came 10 months after Ariffin delivered his controversial oral verdict on Aug 8 last year.

The prosecution had relied on the evidence of Azizan, who was the former driver of Anwar’s wife Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, to show that Anwar and his adopted brother Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja were involved in acts of sodomy.

During the trial, Azizan gave graphic details of the alleged liaisons between Anwar and Sukma, adding that he was forcefully violated sexually by both of them.

Last August, Arifin had found Anwar and Sukma to be guilty of sodomy and sentenced Anwar to nine years jail and Sukma to six years jail and two strokes of rotan.

In his judgment today, Arifin referred to the defence’s submission that Azizan had contradicted himself during the trial when he said at one point that he was sodomised by Anwar and at another point that he was not, and that Azizan had not explained the contradiction.

Another contradiction which the defence found in Azizan’s testimony was the different dates which the former driver said the alleged offences took place.

Paid money

To this, Arifin said that he found there to be no contradiction between what Azizan had said in regards to the act of sodomy.

“Even assuming that there is a material contradiction, I am more than satisfied that Azizan had successfully explained the contradiction,” added Arifin.

The judge also said that the defence had relied on a testimony of a defence witness, ASP Zull Aznam Haron, who had said that Azizan told him that he (Azizan) was paid money to make the allegations against Anwar.

Zull Aznam was Anwar’s aide-de-camp (ADC) from 1997 to 1998.

“However, I am inclined to believe that this conversation never took place and I am convinced that Azizan never told the witness about it.”

“The alleged conversation under the circumstances is the brainchild of the witness to suit the defence,” added Arifin.

Arifin said that despite various objections and “arguments without any merit” by the defence on the credibility of Azizan, he still “finds that Azizan’s credibility remains intact”.

“I am of the firm view that Azizan was speaking the truth ... he had nothing to gain whatsoever but stood to lose everything if his evidence was not true. Further, one cannot conceive that one would fabricate a serious charge of sodomy against one who was both the finance minister and deputy prime minister,” said Arifin.

Arifin also said that he found Sukma’ confession to the police that he and Anwar sodomised Azizan to be the truth, despite Sukma claiming at the trial that he was forced to confess.

He also added that by case-laws, Sukma’s confession can be used against Anwar to show that he, too, had participated in the act.

‘Absurd and incredible’

Arifin also said that based on Azizan’s evidence, it was established that Azizan was sodomised by Anwar and Sukma, thus refuting the defence contention that the charges against Anwar and Sukma were false and fabricated.

“I am also satisfied that on the evidence, both the accused committed the act of carnal intercourse against the order of nature voluntarily. There is no contrary evidence to show they were forced to commit the offence,” he said.

On Anwar’s defence that he was elsewhere during the time the alleged offences were said to have happened, Arifin said the defence of alibi failed to raise a reasonable doubt as it did not cover the entire duration which Anwar was alleged to have committed the offences, that being between January and March 1993.

“The alibi covered the period only from Feb 4 to March 31, 1993 and is therefore incomplete,” said Arifin.

The judge also dismissed Anwar’s claims that there was a high-level conspiracy to topple him by procuring and using fabricated evidence.

Arifin said that on the evidence adduced by defence witnesses on the conspiracy theory, he was satisfied that this defence was not substantiated.

He said that the witnesses’ narrations on the theory were “fertile imagination”, “suspect”, “worthless” and “hearsay”.

Arifin also said that the evidence of former director-general of the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) Shafee Yahaya showing the existence of bad blood between Anwar and Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad was “merely to create an adverse impression on the PM that he had interfered with the work of the ACA”.

Shafee had testified that Mahathir had “scolded” him for raiding the office of the head of the Economic Planning Unit.

“I am of the view that it is absurd and incredible that the PM scolded Shafee for the raid and asked him to close the case,” said Arifin in his judgment.

Arrogant attitude

Arifin added that the defence had failed to create any reasonable doubt and that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Arifin also commented on Anwar’s behaviour in addressing his mitigation, stating that he had used the opportunity to make a political speech to highlight his grievances and dissatisfaction with Mahathir and also attack the judiciary.

“He displayed an attitude of arrogance and disrespect to the bench and levelling against his former colleagues and political allies allegations of corruption and malpractices which are not relevant to the issues before the court,” said the judge.

Arifin also said that Anwar had tarnished the image of those people in the eyes of the public at a forum where those people had no opportunity to defend themselves.

On imposing consecutive sentencing on Anwar, who is also serving a six-year jail term for abuse of power, Arifin said that the two offences were distinctly different and a concurrent sentencing would not reflect the seriousness of the sodomy offence.

Anwar is appealing against both sentences.

Saturday June 16

Jaka’s believe it or not?
Paul Warren

4:34pm, Sat: High Court judge Arifin Jaka's written judgment which was finally "forced out" 10 months too late, reinforces the standard to which the courts have reduced themselves in applying their "right to choose what they wish to believe".

He 'chose to believe' that Azizan was truthful and believable at the time he delivered the judgment. Azizan was found guilty of khalwat whilst he had pleaded that his new found religious beliefs were what led him to come out accusing Anwar of sodomy.

Jaka, once again in his written judgment, applies the test of believability on the strength of "he had nothing to gain whatsoever but stood to lose everything if his evidence was not true".

Yet he fails to apply the same test on the testimony of former director-general of the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) Shafee Yahaya showing the existence of bad blood between Anwar and Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Does he mean to suggest that Shafee had nothing to lose in making such a testimony? Did it not occur to Jaka that a man who became the top guy of the ACA is now seen to be a man who is unbelievable to his friends and society?

Jaka chooses to apply different sets of tests as he wishes. Does Jaka have the right to such discretion? If indeed the judiciary as a whole can happily rely on Jaka's test of believability and admission of uncorroborated evidence, then surely the Election Court judge Muhammad Kamil’s allegation of judicial interference should also be determined along the same precedence set by Jaka.

Eusoff Chin cannot complain if this test was applied because he allowed such a test to be applied while he was chief justice. Let us be fair to that man who is languishing in jail because our courts have reduced themselves to such a lowly test.

In closing, I would like to simply apply the human test and I challenge Jaka and all men on this one simple test. After so many years I still very clearly remember the day I lost my so-to-speak “virginity”.

Azizan Abu Bakar claims to have been sodomised by none other than a man destined to be the next prime minister and yet he cannot place the time of when it happened with any amount of certainty, a timing that is only believable when one chooses to believe it as one can choose to believe that in fact it was the stork that delivered him into this world!

Saturday June 16

A shoddy judgment
KB Gan

4:30pm, Sat: After reading High Court judge Arifin Jaka's written judgment on the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trial, I am thoroughly disgusted by the abysmal quality of the judgment.

The unsubstantiated testimony of the prosecution's star witness, Azizan Abu Bakar was described as truthful, credible and "solid as the Rock of Gibraltar" while any testimony by the defense was dismissed as absurd, incredible, fertile imagination, hearsay or some other prejudicial remark.

As Azizan's testimony was totally unsubstantiated, the judge seems to relying solely on his personal feeling and opinion that Azizan was a truthful and credible witness who had no reason to lie.

He seems to have forgotten that he had once scolded Azizan for "saying one thing now and another thing the next day" during the trial.

Having nothing concrete to grasp, the judge could only pepper his judgment with personal opinion statements such as "I believe", "I'm satisfied", "I'm convinced" without citing any grounds for such conviction.

The judge was quick to dismiss the testimonies of defense witnesses as unsubstantiated despite the fact that the defense had produced many witnesses to bolster its case of conspiracy. Their interlocking testimonies which painted a clear picture of conspiracy were all dismissed in disparaging terms.

However the testimony of the sole witness for the prosecution who had nothing and nobody to back him up save for the repudiated affidavit of a person who said he was forced to confess to a crime he did not commit was taken at face value despite his inability to stick consistently to his story.

Why was the same standard of proof not applied to the prosecution? Why is the judgment filled with all manner of speculative opinion?

Arifin Jaka's summary remarks says it all: "I am of the firm view that Azizan was speaking the truth ... he had nothing to gain whatsoever but stood to lose everything if his evidence was not true. Further, one cannot conceive that one would fabricate a serious charge of sodomy against one who was both the finance minister and deputy prime minister".

It is sad that a man could be convicted of a serious crime and jailed for nine years on nothing more substantial than the uncorroborated and unproven testimony of one accuser who in the judge's personal opinion, "had nothing to gain by lying".

This is circular logic to the extreme. By the same logic, should we then believe each and every accuser of vile crimes against another and dispense with time wasting trials because they stand to lose everything if they had lied?

Also, it is not for the judge to base his judgment on whether or not he can conceive that a person can commit such a crime against such and such a person. This is pure speculation and it has no place in a court of law where a man's freedom and reputation hang in the balance.

The fact that the judge had to draw comfort from these flawed arguments shows how painfully he has to scrape the bottom of the barrel to get some dregs to bolster his untenable conclusion.

Clearly it is not easy to convict an innocent man and back it up with logical, cogent arguments. In the end, the judgement is illogical, flimsy and unconvincing.

Are the public to be insulted with such low quality judgement? People will be more convinced than ever that Anwar was convicted on the basis of a show trial.

Azizan admitted Anwar did not sodomise him

The Kuala Lumpur Federal Court was told today that Azizan admitted three times that Anwar Ibrahim did not sodomise him.

“After two-and-a-half days of questioning, Azizan finally admitted that Dato Seri Anwar did not sodomise him,” said Christopher Fernando, one of Anwar Ibrahim’s solicitors, during the fifth day of Anwar’s appeal hearing.

“There was no misunderstanding. Azizan understood the question and replied that Dato Seri Anwar did not sodomise him, “ explained Fernando.

Fernando explained that he had said, “I put it to you that Dato Seri Anwar did not do anything to you between 1992 and 1997. That is why you contunied to visit him between 1992 and 1997. And he replied, Yes".”

“In fact, the judge himself was taken aback and did not write anything but stared blankly,” added Fernando. “I had to ask the judge to record it and he said, “Yes, yes, I am recording”.”

“The judge then asked me to put it to Azizan bluntly that he was not sodomised.”

Fernando added that he then asked Azizan the question again. “I put it to you, Dato Seri Anwar did not sodomise you. That is why you continued to visit him between 1992 and 1997. Otherwise, you would have kept far away from him.”

“For the second time the judge said, “Look, maybe he does not understand the question.”

“I then asked Azizan for the third time and, for the third time, he admitted that he was not sodomised by Dato Seri Anwar.”

“However the judge recorded the answer only once,” argued Fernando.

“This unprecedented admission by Azizan proved conclusively that the allegations against Dato Seri Anwar were patently false and fabricated,” argued Fernando.

“In the interests of justice, the judge should have recorded that Azizan admitted three times he was not sodomised by Dato Seri Anwar.”

“Instead, despite this damning piece of evidence, the judge declared Azizan a credible witness and expunged this evidence from the records. This is quite remarkable. ”

“Azizan admitted to a serving police officer that he wrote the letter to the Prime Minister (alleging that Anwar had sodomised him) because he was promised money.”

“This means Azizan had been bribed and he is not a credible witness. He is totally uncredit worthy.”

“Under Section 155 of the Evidence Act, this witness ought to have been impeached because he had been bribed. This is an important provision of law which the judge ignored.”

“In light of Azizan’s admission, the evidence against Dato Seri Anwar was clearly false and fabricated.”

“If this evidence had been allowed, Azizan’s credibility would have been destroyed.”

“This is a serious error on the part of the judge and detrimental to Dato Seri Anwar’s right to a fair trial. The judge was prejudiced at a very early stage of the case. The judge had prejudged the issues and was clearly biased and should not have continued.”

“The judge came to court with a closed mind and was not prepared to entertain any evidence on the issue of political conspiracy and fabrication of evidence, which was Anwar's defence.”

“The judge showed prejudgment. The judge should have disqualified himself from hearing the case.”

"The trial was conducted in flagrant diregard of the rules of natural justice," concluded Fernando.

ANWAR IBRAHIM APPEAL HEARING, DAY 5

Defence prevented from calling witnesses

The Kuala Lumpur Federal Court was told today that the defence was prevented from calling witnesses crucial to Anwar Ibrahim’s defence.

“The trial judge prevented the defence from calling two crucial witnesses that would have established the defence to the hilt,” said Christopher Fernando, one of Anwar Ibrahim’s solicitors, during the fifth day of Anwar’s appeal hearing. “One was Jamal Amro and another was Manjeet Singh.”

“The court prevented several other witnesses from being called but these two were the most crucial.”

“The trial judge would insist to know what each witness was going to say before allowing them to be called. The judge would dismiss witnesses (halfway through cross-examination) and disallowed several more from being called,” added Fernando.

“Jamal runs a limousine rental business in Washington DC and, since 1981, had a contract with the Malaysian Embassy,” explained Fernando.

“Jamal was asked to fabricate evidence against Dato Seri Anwar and Jamal raised a complaint with the then Malaysian Ambassador.”

“Jamal was supposed to testify to this, but the trial judge would not allow Jamal to be called to testify that he had been asked to fabricate evidence in exchange for a big sum of money by a Malaysian diplomat.”

"This was direct evidence of fabrication and clearly relevant to our defence but was unfairly dissallowed."

Fernando went on to say, “Several witnesses who could have provided evidence that would help Dato Seri Anwar’s case were prevented from testifying rendering Dato Seri Anwar’s trial a most unfair trial,” argued Fernando.

“Dato Seri Anwar was subjected to the most unfair trial imaginable. No parallel can be found in Malaysian history to match this one.”

“The trial judge ruled that all witnesses need to be screened first and what they would be testifying must be declared before the court would decide whether they can be called.”

“This is not only a serious misbehavior but a gross misbehavior on the part of the judge in refusing to allow witnesses to be called who were crucial to Dato Seri Anwar’s case and help to prove there was an attempt to frame Dato Seri Anwar.”

ANWAR IBRAHIM APPEAL HEARING, DAY 5

The trial judge was militant and trigger-happy: Fernando

“No judge should come to court with a militant attitude,” said Christopher Fernando, one of Anwar Ibrahim’s solicitors during the fifth day of Anwar’s appeal hearing at the Kuala Lumpur Federal Court today.

When cautioned about the implication of this harsh description, Fernando changed it to “confrontational”.

“The trial judge said, “I will use every inch of my judicial muscle to ensure a smooth flow of the trail”.

Fernando questioned what was the need to issue such an ominous threat.

"In fact, he did flex his so-called judicial muscles with impunity,” added Fernando.

"In one fell swoop, the trial judge threatened the entire defence team. He issued an ominous threat very early in the proceedings.”

“When he could no longer stand the unfairness, threats, harassment, and oppression, Dato Seri Anwar applied for the trial judge to withdraw.”

“The application was filed in court but the prosecution told the judge to ignore the application and proceed with the trial as they do not want any further delays.”

“The excuse given was that the application was filed in another court whereas it was filed in the same court,” explained Fernando.

“The defence was asking the trial judge to disqualify himself but the prosecution was asking him to carry on.”

“The trial judge then refused to entertain the application and asked the defence to apply to the Chief Justice of Malaya instead.”

“The defence asked that the Dato Seri Anwar trial not be heard any further pending the application for the trial judge to be removed,” argued Fernando. “The trial judge, however, ignored this application and proceeded with the trial.”

“And when the defence asked for a stay pending the outcome of the application, the trial judge threatened the defence with contempt of court, yet again.”

“We were threatened with contempt at every turn,” said Christopher. “Contempt was used as a weapon of oppression.”

“Using contempt as a threat against a lawyer is a serious misconduct on the part of the trial judge,” argued Fernando.

“The trial judge was trigger-happy with contempt powers. He was using contempt as a means to prevent the defence from doing its job.”

ANWAR IBRAHIM APPEAL HEARING, DAY 5

The trial judge threatened the defence counsels

“There were numerous occasions where the trial judge made untenable rulings and threatened the defence with contempt of court proceedings,” said Christopher Fernando, one of Anwar Ibrahim’s solicitors, during the fifth day of Anwar’s appeal hearing at the Kuala Lumpur Federal Court today.

“The trial judge was overbearing, rude, insulting and threatening,” stressed Fernando.

“Whenever the defence was cross-examining witnesses, the trial judge would tell it to stop and would say, “You know the consequences of going against my ruling". These were clearly threats.”

“The trial judge would frequently threaten the defence and would say things like, “Be careful with your language”, “If you pursue I will hold you in contempt”, and so on.”

Fernando went on to say, “The defence would try to explain that it wanted to prove there was a political conspiracy. The trial judge, however, said that if the defence can’t prove it, they will be held in contempt.”

“It is not the defence’s job to prove anything,” explained Fernando. “It is the prosecution’s job. The judge was clearly in error.”

“The lawyers were constantly harassed and continuously threatened with contempt of court each time it examined or cross-examined a witness or raised an issue that the trial judge did not like.”

“The defence was prevented from cross-examining Dr Halim Mansar (Forensic Consultant to the Kuala Lumpur Hospital) about his medical report,” argued Fernando.

“The questions I wanted to ask were legitimate questions, but they were ruled irrelavant."

"If allowed, it would have established that Dato Seri Anwar was beaten and left unconscious and denied medical attention for four days.”

“The court not only disallowed the cross-examination but threatened the defence with contempt as well.”

ANWAR IBRAHIM APPEAL HEARING, DAY 5

Anwar trial oppressive: Fernando

“The Dato Seri Anwar trial was not only unfair but oppressive,” said Christopher Fernando, one of Anwar Ibrahim’s solicitors, during the fifth day of Anwar’s appeal hearing at the Kuala Lumpur Federal Court today.

“An accused person has the unhindered right to advance any defence available to him,” argued Fernando. “And he must be given every opportunity to adduce evidence to support his defence. The court cannot take away this right from him or whittle it down in any way.”

“Dato Seri Anwar, however, was prevented from adducing evidence of a political conspiracy,” explained Fernando.

“The judge was well aware of the political conspiracy against Dato Seri Anwar and the trumped-up charges. However, the trial judge prevented the defence team from questioning witnesses or calling witnesses to prove that this political conspiracy existed.”

Fernando went on to say, “There was direct evidence of a political conspiracy but the trial judge would not allow this evidence to be produced in court.”

“From the very beginning, the defence was not allowed to adduce evidence of a political conspiracy.”

“The prosecution brought in witnesses but the defence was prevented from cross-examining these witnesses on grounds that it was not relevant.”

“The trumped-up charges were designed to remove Dato Seri Anwar from power,” explained Fernando. “The court should not have prevented the defence from pursuing this angle.”

“If the defence was allowed to examine or cross-examine witnesses or call the witnesses it wanted, the political conspiracy would have been proven very early in the trial. It would have proven that Dato Seri Anwar was removed from office due to a political conspiracy.”

“The trial judge somehow refused to allow the defence to pursue the political conspiracy,” argued Fernando. “But he would allow police conspiracy.”

“This means the defence cannot attack politicians but could attack the police.”

“The court was interfering in the way the defence was pursuing its case,” summed up Fernando.

ANWAR IBRAHIM APPEAL HEARING, DAY 5

The rules of natural justice are enforced as a matter of law and not a matter of discretion: Fernando

“Justice must not only be done but must also be manifestly seen to be done,” said Christopher Fernando, one of Anwar Ibrahim’s solicitors, during the fifth day of Anwar’s appeal hearing at the Kuala Lumpur Federal Court today.

“The right to a fair trial is an absolute right,” stressed Fernando. “This is not compromisable. The trial must be conducted with due regard to natural justice.”

“The rules of natural justice are enforced as a matter of law and not a matter of discretion. This is a fundamental principle of law.”

Fernando went on to say, “There are principles subscribed to by all nations that uphold the rule of law. If an accused person is denied a fair trial, then the trial process violates the rules of natural justice, and any conviction resulting therefrom the trial has to be set aside.”

“There is no compromise on this,” argued Fernando. “This is of universal application.”

“Even if there is sufficient evidence on record to convict a person, that conviction has to be set aside nevertheless.”

“If the court decides that the Dato Seri Anwar trial was unfair, then the court does not need to look any further,” explained Fernando. “It can set aside the conviction without even looking at the evidence.”

ANWAR IBRAHIM APPEAL HEARING, DAY 5

Defence prevented from presenting its case in its own way

The Anwar Ibrahim appeal hearing resumed today with lead counsel Raja Aziz Addruse asking the court that he be excused as he had another matter to attend to. Sulaiman Abdullah then took over but, before he could start, the court asked him what he was going to talk about today.

Sulaiman replied that he was going to talk about the unfairness of the trial and that the defence was not allowed to present its case in its own way.

One of the issues raised by Sulaiman was that the defence was prohibited from calling several witnesses. Sulaiman then read through the transcripts of the previous trial to support this argument.

Another point Sulaiman raised to support his argument that Anwar did not get a fair trial was when the Royal Commission of Inquiry was held to establish the facts behind the Anwar beating.

The defence had applied for a postponement of the trial to allow Anwar to attend the Inquiry while the previous Inspector General of Police, Rahim Noor, was being examined. Anwar needed to be present at the Inquiry, explained Sulaiman, so that he could hear Rahim’s testimony to be able to advise his lawyers accordingly.

The trial judge, however, denied permission on grounds that no official request had been made by the Royal Commission asking that Anwar be present so the Inquiry had to continue in Anwar’s absence argued Sulaiman.

Sulaiman then stressed that the charges against Anwar were amended so the defence had asked for time to study the new charges and prepare its case. But the trial judge, again, turned down this request and insisted that the case proceed without further delay.

The defence was constantly harassed, said Sulaiman, and when this point was brought up the prosecution replied that if the defence was not happy then it could make a police report on the matter. The trial judge, in turn, just brushed the complaint aside by saying it was a trivial matter.

Sulaiman added that the trial judge’s attitude was one-sided. He would dismiss all the defence’s complaints and would come down hard on the defence. The trial judge, however, would commend the prosecution.

In short, summarised Sulaiman, the trial judge would openly show biasness and would favour the prosecution while oppressing the defence. Sulaiman then read further transcripts of the previous trial to support his argument.