Then they discovered another ‘small’ problem. Azizan had stated that he was never sodomised after 1992 and that it all happened – if indeed it had happened at all – before May 1992 (later he changed his story to ‘September 1992’).

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Anwar’s alibi is as strong as the Rock of Gibraltar

The Kuala Lumpur Appeal Court was told that under Section 402A of the Criminal Procedure Code, the alibi of the accused as to where he was at the time of the alleged crime needs to be investigated by the police and established.

Anwar Ibrahim and his Indonesian-born adopted brother, Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja, were originally charged with sodomising Azizan Abu Bakar sometime in the month of May 1992 in the Tivoli Villa.

Anwar then successfully proved his alibi. And his alibi was that the Tivoli Villa was still under construction and was not completed yet in May 1992. Therefore it could not have happened.

When the defence filed its Notice of Alibi and the prosecution discovered its mistake, it quickly amended the date on the charge to read one day in ‘May 1994’.

The defence protested this most unorthodox move and the trial judge had the gall to say that the defence should have kept quiet. The defence should have allowed the case to go on and let the prosecution complete its case, then, at the end of the trial, the defence should have sprung a surprise on the prosecution and demolish its case.

The defence, in all sincerity, had pointed out this major flaw in the charge, but the judge, instead of throwing out the case, allowed this eleventh hour amendment to be made and laughed at the defence for not being devious enough.

Only a man with a devious mind who suggests such a devious strategy - and it has now been proven that that ‘devious’ is too mild a word to use on this judge.

Then they discovered another ‘small’ problem. Azizan had stated that he was never sodomised after 1992 and that it all happened – if indeed it had happened at all – before May 1992 (later he changed his story to ‘September 1992’).

So ‘May 1994’ was also now out and they had to amend the date on the charge yet again. But they could not move it back to 1992. So they chose ‘one day at 7.45pm from 1 January 1993 to 31 March 1993’ as the new date of the charge. And Azizan would now need to change his testimony and contradict his earlier statement to make this new date possible.

‘Never sodomised after September 1992’ was no longer a statement that would be possible. ‘If I was asked specifically, then I would have said it still happened from 1 January 1993 to 31 March 1993’ was the new statement he would have to make though this contradicted everything he had said earlier.

And the trial judge allowed it to ensure the prosecution’s case would not be demolished and he refused to impeach Azizan and cite him for perjury, saying that, “Azizan’s testimony is as strong as the Rock of Gibraltar and that Azizan has satisfactorily explained the contradictions.

But the original alibi that the defence raised was only in respect of the ‘May 1992’ charge. This alibi would no longer be applicable to the new date on the charge, ‘one day at 7.45pm from 1 January 1993 to 31 March 1993’.

So the defence asked for a postponement to enable it to file a new Notice of Alibi as required under Section 402A of the Criminal Procedure Code.

“The judge knew what he was doing when he denied the request for a postponement to file a new Notice of Alibi under Section 402A,” said Gobind Singh Deo, Anwar’s counsel.

“Judges are bound to comply to this mandatory ruling and they have no discretion in the matter.”

“This Appeal Court is obligated to comply to this ruling and acquit both Anwar and Sukma of the conviction.”

“The Attorney-General (then), Tan Sri Mohtar (Abdullah) said the 90 days alibi the defence raised was a ‘sham defence’. He said this without a clue as to what evidence the defence had and who the witnesses were going to be.”

“The AG wanted blood. He acted Mala Fide. He did now know and did not care when he changed the date on the charge ‘from January to March 1993’.”

“The judge convicted Anwar and Sukma for an offence that happened between January and March 1993 ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ whereas the alibi proved that the entire 90 days Dato Seri Anwar was never near Tivoli Villa.”

“The AG tried to oppress Dato Seri Anwar. He knew Dato Seri Anwar and Sukma were not in Tivoli Villa, yet he purposely fixed these dates to frustrate the defence.”

“The AG’s conduct should be condemned.”

“It is shocking, shocking, shocking!”

“The AG said he had all the evidence of Dato Seri Anwar’s whereabouts both in and out of the country those entire 90 days. The AG said they had kept a diary of Dato Seri Anwar’s whereabouts.”

At this point the AG stood up to say that he did not have the diary and had never seen one.

Anwar then told the court that the diary in question was the police dairy that logged his detailed movements which the police confiscated and has since disappeared.

The court was then told, nevertheless, the defence managed to account for the entire 90 days between 1 January 1993 and 31 March 1993 and that this was never challenged or rebutted by the prosecution.

The judge, however, declared that the defence failed to provide an alibi for one of those 90 days; and that was 19 February 1993, which was Friday.

“Only the judge rejected it to secure a conviction.”

Gobind then took the court through the testimonies of the earlier trial to show that Friday, 19 February 1993, was also accounted for as Azizan has testified he had prayed his Zohor prayers at home that day so it could not have been a Friday since he would have gone to the mosque to pray.

“Even the trial judge said that Friday prayers are only preformed in the mosque and not at home.”

Friday, 19 February 1993, therefore, would have completed the alibi for the entire 90 days and Anwar and Sukma could not have sodomised Azizan between 1 January 1993 and 31 March 1993.

Anwar and Sukma, however, were convicted for a sodomy act that occurred ‘one day at 7.45pm between 1 January 1993 and 31 March 1993’ though it was proven beyond any shadow of doubt they were both nowhere near Tivoli Villa and could account for their whereabouts the entire 90 days. And the prosecution never denied or rebutted this.

HARI 5 - 1 April 2003 (Bahagian 2)

Kemudian, mereka mendapati bahawa ada satu lagi masalah 'kecil'. Azizan menyatakan bahawa dia tidak pernah diliwat tahun 1992 dan bahawa semua kejadian liwat berlaku - jika ia memang benar-benar berlaku - sebelum Mei 1992 (kemudian, dia mengubah pula tarikh itu kepada 'September 1992').

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Alibi Anwar adalah sekuat Rock of Gibraltar.

Mahkamah Rayuan Kuala Lumpur diberitahu bahawa menurut Seksyen 402A Kanun Acara Jenayah, alibi tertuduh berkenaan kedudukannya ketika jenayah didakwa dilakukan perlu disiasat dan ditentukan oleh polis.

Pada mulanya, Anwar Ibrahim dan adik angkatnya dari Indonesia, Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja didakwa meliwat Azizan Abu Bakar sekitar Mei 1992 di Tivoli Villa.

Anwar kemudiannya berjaya membuktikan alibinya. Alibinya adalah bahawa Tivoli Villa masih dalam proses pembinaan dan belum pun siap pada Mei 1992. Jadi, kejadian itu tidak mungkin berlaku.

Apabila Pembelaan memfailkan Notis Alibi, dan Pendakwa menyedari kesilapan mereka, mereka terus meminda tarikh dalam pertuduhan kepada satu hari dalam 'Mei 1994'.

Pembelaan membantah tindakan yang tidak ortodoks itu, dan Hakim ‘berani’ pula mengatakan bahawa Pembelaan sepatutnya berdiam diri. Menurutnya, Pembelaan sepatutnya membiarkan Pendakwa meneruskan hujah dan membuat kejutan pada akhir perbicaraan, yang mana ia dapat memusnahkan kes Pendakwa.

Pembelaan dengan ikhlas mendedahkan kesilapan besar ini (pertukaran tarikh), tetapi jangankan dia membuang kes itu, malah Hakim membenarkan pindaan saat akhir itu, dan mentertawakan Pembelaan kerana tidak cukup licik.

Ya, hanya seorang yang licik yang akan menyarankan strategi licik seperti itu – kini terbuktilah bahawa perkataan 'licik' terlalu sopan bagi menggelarkan hakim berkenaan.

Kemudian, mereka mendapati bahawa ada satu lagi masalah 'kecil'. Azizan menyatakan bahawa dia tidak pernah diliwat tahun 1992 dan bahawa semua kejadian liwat berlaku - jika ia memang benar-benar berlaku - sebelum Mei 1992 (kemudian, dia mengubah pula tarikh itu kepada 'September 1992').

Jadi, kini, 'Mei 1994' juga tidak dapat digunakan dan mereka sekali lagi terpaksa meminda tarikh dalam pertuduhan. Namun mereka tidak boleh memindanya kepada 1992. Jadi, mereka memilih 'satu hari pada 7:45 malam dari 1 Januari 1993 hingga 31 Mac 1993' sebagai tarikh baru. Bagi mengesahkan tarikh baru itu, Azizan terpaksa mengubah keterangannya dan mencanggahi keterangannya sebelum itu.

Jadi, kenyataan 'Tidak pernah diliwat selepas September 1992' tidak lagi boleh digunakan. Meskipun ia bercanggah dengan semua keterangannya sebelum ini, keterangan baru yang perlu diberikannya adalah, “Jika saya ditanya secara spesifik, maka saya akan mengatakan bahawa ia masih berlaku dari 1 Januari 1993 hingga 31 Mac 1993’.

Hakim membenarkannya bagi memastikan kes Pendakwa terus kukuh, dan enggan mendakwa Azizan atas kesalahan sumpah bohong, dengan mengatakan bahawa, "Keterangan Azizan adalah sekuat Rock of Gibraltar dan bahawa Azizan telah menjelaskan segala percanggahan itu dengan baik.”

Tapi alibi asal yang dikemukakan oleh Pembelaan hanya berhubung dengan pertuduhan 'Mei 1992'. Alibi itu tidak dapat digunakan bagi tarikh baru, iaitu 'satu hari pada 7:45 malam dari 1 Januari 1993 hingga 31 Mac 1993'.

Jadi, Pembelaan memohon penangguhan bagi membolehkan mereka mengajukan Notis Alibi yang baru, sebagaimana yang dikehendaki di bawah Seksyen 402A Kanun Acara Jenayah.

"Hakim tahu (implikasi) tindakannya apabila dia menolak permohonan penangguhan bagi mengemukakan Notis Alibi yang baru di bawah Seksyen 402A," kata peguam Anwar, Gobind Singh Deo.

"Sebenarnya, Hakim perlu mematuhi peraturan mandatori itu dan dalam hal ini, hakim tidak dibenarkan menggunakan budi bicara.”

"Mahkamah Rayuan berkewajipan mematuhi peraturan itu dan membebaskan kedua-dua Anwar dan Sukma dari sabitan tersebut."

"Peguam Negara (pada ketika itu), Tan Sri Mohtar (Abdullah) berkata bahawa alibi 90 hari yang diajukan oleh Pembelaan adalah 'pembelaan yang palsu '. Dia mengatakan sedemikian tanpa mengetahui tentang bukti dan saksi yang akan dikemukakan oleh Pembelaan."

"Peguam Negara dahagakan darah. Dia bertindak secara Mala Fide. Dia tidak tahu dan tidak peduli ketika dia menukar tarikh dalam pertuduhan 'dari Januari hingga Mac 1993'."

"Hakim menyabitkan Anwar dan Sukma 'melampaui keraguan munasabah' bagi jenayah yang berlaku antara bulan Januari dan Mac 1993, sedangkan alibi (Anwar) membuktikan bahawa Dato’ Seri Anwar tidak pernah berada di Tivoli Villa selama tempoh 90 hari terbabit."

"Peguam Negara cuba menindas Dato’ Seri Anwar. Walaupun dia tahu bahawa (ketika itu), Dato’ Seri Anwar dan Sukma tidak berada di Tivoli Villa, namun dia sengaja menetapkan tarikh-tarikh tersebut bagi menggagalkan usaha Pembelaan."

"Tindakannya itu patut dikutuk."

"Ia mengejutkan, mengejutkan, mengejutkan!"

"Peguam Negara mengatakan bahawa dia mempunyai bukti tentang kedudukan dalam mahupun luar negara Dato’ Seri Anwar selama tempoh 90 hari itu. Dia menyatakan bahawa mereka menyimpan diari berkenaan kedudukan Dato’ Seri Anwar."

Peguam Negara terus berdiri dan mengatakan bahawa dia tidak mempunyai diari yang dimaksudkan itu, malah tidak pernah pun melihatnya.

Anwar kemudiannya memberitahu mahkamah bahawa “diari” yang dinyatakan merujuk kepada diari polis yang mana segala pergerakannya tercatat secara terperinci. Polis merampas diari itu dan sejak itu, ia tidak lagi dapat dikesan.

Walau bagaimanapun, mahkamah kemudiannya diberitahu bahawa Pembelaan berjaya mengesahkan kedudukan Anwar sepanjang 90 hari terbabit, yakni antara 1 Januari 1993 dan 31 Mac 1993, dan bahawa ini tidak pernah dicabar ataupun dibantah oleh Pendakwa.

Meskipun demikian, Hakim menyatakan bahawa Pembelaan gagal memberikan alibi bagi salah satu antara 90 hari itu, iaitu 19 Februari 1993, yang merupakan hari Jumaat.

"Hakim menolaknya demi mendapatkan sabitan.”

Seterusnya, Gobind menyatakan bahawa Jumaat, 19 Februari 1993 juga konsisten dengan alibi kerana menurut keterangan Azizan dalam perbicaraan sebelum itu, dia bersolat Zohor di rumah pada hari itu. Jadi, hari itu tidak mungkin hari Jumaat kerana jika ya, maka sudah tentu dia pergi ke masjid untuk bersolat (Jumaat).

"Hakim perbicaraan sendiri mengatakan bahawa solat Jumaat hanya ditunaikan di masjid dan bukannya di rumah."

Dengan demikian, Jumaat, 19 Februari 1993 melengkapkan alibi bagi keseluruhan 90 hari terbabit, dan Anwar dan Sukma tidak mungkin meliwat Azizan antara 1 Januari 1993 dan 31 Mac 1993.

Sungguhpun Pembelaan membuktikan ‘melampaui semua keraguan’ bahawa Anwar dan Sukma tidak pernah pun berada di Tivoli Villa dan dapat menjelaskan mengenai kedudukan mereka bagi keseluruhan 90 hari terbabit, mereka berdua masih didapati bersalah atas jenayah liwat yang berlaku 'satu hari pada 7:45 malam dari 1 Januari 1993 hingga 31 Mac 1993'. Malah Pendakwa sendiri tidak pernah menyanggah ataupun membantah hakikat ini (alibi Anwar).

Comments (6)