Prosecution’s ‘star witness’ proven unreliable; admits Anwar never sodomised him

Fernando then related the meetings another lawyer, Manjeet Singh Dhillon, had with the two Chief Prosecutors, one of whom is now the Attorney-General. In the meetings, the two prosecutors, Abdul Gani Patail and Azhar Mohamad, used extortion and blackmail to try to get Manjeet’s client, Dato’ Nalla Karuppan, to fabricate evidence against Anwar.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Christopher Fernando, Anwar Ibrahim’s lead counsel, kicked off the appeal hearing in the Kuala Lumpur Appeal Court by telling the court that the prosecution’s case rested primarily on the evidence of Azizan Abu Bakar. The entire case, in fact, was based on the credibility of Azizan.

However, Fernando said, Azizan consistently contradicted himself during the course of the trial and, therefore, is an unreliable witness.

In fact, the court was told, not only should Azizan have been declared an unreliable witness, but he also should have been impeached and cited for perjury.

“Instead,” argued Fernando, “The learned judge held the witness to be credible, reliable and honest.”

“This witness is one of the most unreliable witnesses ever to have come before a court of law,” said Fernando.

“His evidence is riddled with inconsistencies and outright lies. He has given three different versions of what actually transpired.”

Fernando explained that in the first (corruption) trial, Azizan gave evidence that he was sodomised by Anwar but, in the second (sodomy) trial, he testified he was never sodomised by Anwar.

“He admitted not once, but three times that between the years 1992 and 1997 he was never sodomised by Anwar, and that was why he continued to visit Anwar. If not, he would have kept far away from Anwar.”

“He admitted this in the most unequivocal terms,” said Fernando. “The judge himself was taken aback.”

Fernando said the judge then asked him to repeat the question as maybe Azizan did not understand it. Fernando said he then asked Azizan a second time and, for the second time, Azizan admitted Anwar did not sodomise him.

“I then asked him third time just to make sure and to be fair to him,” said Fernando, “And, for the third time, he admitted that Anwar did not sodomise him.”

“After several days, and during the re-examination, a leading question was asked by the prosecution which was most unfair and the judge ought to have rejected it.”

And the question was, “After 1992, were you sodomised again?”

“The defence objected to this question but the judge allowed the question to be asked,” explained Fernando.

“However, in response to this leading question, whether he was sodomised from 1992 to today (1998), Azizan, again, said he was never sodomised.”

“The judge himself made specific findings. On one occasion he said, “This witness says one thing today and another thing tomorrow”.”

The judge also said, “This witness is very evasive. He refuses to answer even simple questions”.”

“The judge himself found Azizan an unreliable witness.”

“It is mind boggling that, after making such a strong statement, the judge can turn around and say the witness is credible, honest and trustworthy.”

“The judge’s statement contradicts his own findings.”

Prosecution desperate; charges amended to fit witness’ testimony

The prosecution amended the charges against Anwar Ibrahim, twice, in a desperate attempt to fit it to the testimony of its star witness, Azizan Abu Bakar.

“The original charge was ‘one night in the month of May 1994’,” said Christopher Fernando, Anwar’s lead counsel.

“Then, it was revealed that the Tivoli Villa, the place the alleged crime was supposed to have been committed, had not been completed yet.”

“The prosecution found itself in a terrible dilemma. How could sodomy have taken place in a building that had not been completed?”

“So the charge was amended to ‘one night in the month of May 1992’,” explained Fernando.

But this date still could not fit Azizan’s testimony so, in a desperate attempt to salvage their case, it was again amended to “committed the offence of sodomy at 7.45pm between the month of January to March 1993,” argued Fernando.

“First 1994, then 1992 and, finally, 1993,” said Fernando to the court that had the spectator’s gallery by now in stitches.

“The significance of all this was lost on the judge. He was not able to appreciate what was happening.”

“Why the need to amend it to a date in 1993? They could not go backwards to 1992, or earlier, as the building was not even built yet. So the only way was to go forward.”

“Can anybody, without exception, answer a charge as vague as that, all of us included?” asked Fernando.

“One evening in 90 days! I cannot conceive of a more vague and uncertain charge - a most unfair charge.”

“The amendments to the charge are not Bona Fide.” “

The judge then asked, “You mean the amendments were Mala Fide?” to which Fernando replied, “Yes.”

“The charge was amended to fit Azizan’s testimony,” added Fernando.

Azizan, however, testified that he was never sodomised from 1992 onwards.

“He admitted not once, but three times that between the years 1992 and 1997 he was never sodomised by Anwar, and that was why he continued to visit Anwar. If not, he would have kept far away from Anwar,” said Fernando.

“Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah (the Attorney-General then) said, “We have all the records and evidence pertaining to Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s movements in and out of the country between 1992 and 1998’.”

“If you have all the records and evidence of Dato’ Seri Anwar’s movements, why not produce them? Why such a vague date in the charge?”

“The conclusion to this would be, the records and evidence did not show that Dato’ Seri Anwar was at the Tivoli Villa between January and March 1993.”

“These are trumped-up charges. It has to be. There are no two ways about it.”

“The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister are followed every hour of the day for their own protection and the records of their movements are available.”

“The judge failed to invoke the provisions in section 114(g) of the Evidence Act against the prosecution for failing to produce evidence and records showing Dato’ Seri Anwar’s movements.”

“The records, if produced, would exonerate Dato’ Seri Anwar and would show he was never there (at the Tivoli Villa) during the 60 days (January to March 1993).”

Police coached Azizan on what to testify

It was the police that coached Azizan Abu Bakar, the prosecution’s star witness, on what to testify in court. Christopher Fernando said he had asked Azizan, “Did you tell the police you were sodomised in 1992?”

“Azizan replied that he cannot remember.”

“After further questioning, he then said he did not tell the police he was sodomised in 1992.”

“I then asked him, ‘who fabricated the evidence?’”

“And he replied, he does not know.”

“I further asked him, ‘did you tell the police you were sodomised in May 1994?’”

“He said a number of times that he cannot remember.”

“Finally, he admitted he did not inform the police he was sodomised in May 1994.”

The court was told that Azizan then revealed he was called up by the investigation officer, SAC Musa Hassan, in June 1999.

“I then asked him, ‘were you asked to change the date to 1993?’”

“And he replied, ‘yes’.”

“When asked, ‘who asked you to change the date’, he replied ‘police officer’. Finally, he admitted it was SAC Musa Hassan.”

“Shocking and chilling”; Evidence against Anwar was fabricated

“Shocking and chilling!” That was how Christopher Fernando described the conspiracy to fabricate evidence against the one-time Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia.

Fernando then related the meetings another lawyer, Manjeet Singh Dhillon, had with the two Chief Prosecutors, one of whom is now the Attorney-General. In the meetings, the two prosecutors, Abdul Gani Patail and Azhar Mohamad, used extortion and blackmail to try to get Manjeet’s client, Dato’ Nalla Karuppan, to fabricate evidence against Anwar.

The prosecutors threatened Dato’ Nalla with the death sentence unless he agrees to testify that he was instrumental in procuring women for Anwar.

Dato’ Nalla, however, refused, saying that, short of lying, there is no way he could do that.

They then continued to threaten both him and his family. At first they wanted him to implicate Anwar with two women, then three, then four, and finally they settled for five women, Fernando revealed. The prosecutors also admitted they were looking into matters on behalf of the Prime Minister.

On 25 August 1998, Manjeet filed an Affidavit in court with regards to this matter. On 13 October 1998, Manjeet met the then Attorney-General in the presence of the two prosecutors where the issue was raised.

The Attorney-General apologised for not taking action on Manjeet’s complaint while the two prosecutors remained silent and did not deny the allegation.

They also tried to blackmail another of Manjeet’s client, Dr Munawar Anees, to implicate Anwar with sexual misconduct.

“This shows the police not only tried to get Azizan to lie, but also Dato Nalla and Dr Munawar as well,” said Fernando.

The court was told, Anwar did not leave office until 2 September 1998, yet the Attorney-General and Chief Prosecutors were already attempting to fabricate evidence against him long before then.

Translated into BM at: http://gomalaysian.blogspot.com/2009/11/raja-petra-hari-1-24-march-2003-day-1.html