Pardon for Anwar

Raja Petra Kamarudin

On Sunday, 1 May 2005, the KONVENSYEN PENGAMPUNAN ANWAR IBRAHIM will be held at the ballroom of the Grand Seasons Hotel along Jalan Pahang in Kuala Lumpur. The event, which is open to public, and which has already received a police permit, will start at 2.00pm and should end around 5.00pm or so. The objective is exactly as the name implies, a convention to seek a pardon for Anwar Ibrahim.

This convention is being organised by an ad hoc or loose ‘committee’ that calls itself the Sekretariat Pengampunan Anwar (SEPA), which, understandably, has no executive powers as such. It is not even a legally registered organisation. But it is not the legal status of the body that is important but whether it will be able to achieve what it sets out to do.

The manner in how pardons are granted in Malaysian invariably boils down to whether the Prime Minister would like to grant one or not. It is not up to the King or Pardons Board. The King just does what he is told and the Pardons Board just recommends. The ‘yes’ or ‘no’ comes from the Prime Minister.

The bottom line would be: will Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi see it as politically correct to grant Anwar a pardon? It must be remembered, Anwar himself is not asking for a pardon. He has made it clear he refuses to do so as he considers himself innocent of all charges. So the pardon is being sought by a third party on his behalf, in this case SEPA.

First of all, is there a basis for granting Anwar a pardon? Convicted politicians like one-time Selangor Chief Minister Harun Idris and one-time Youth Minister Mokhtar Hashim have both been granted one. So it is not out of the ordinary to grant one a pardon in recognition of one’s service to the country. And Mokhtar was convicted for murder.

In Harun’s and Mokhtar’s case, there was no dispute as to whether they received fair trials. In Anwar’s case, though, all and sundry agree that his two trials were most irregular. Therefore, he would be even more eligible for a pardon compared to Harun and Mokhtar.

Let us flashback to his trial to see whether this statement holds true and whether SEPA would have a case to argue in seeking this pardon.

Anwar was charged for four offences under section 2(1), Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No 22/1970 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.”

Basically, these are the four ‘crimes’ Anwar was supposed to have committed and to which he was found guilty and sentenced to four six-year consecutive jail terms, which means a total of 24 years.

Anwar was charged on 29 September 1998 and his trial commenced on 2 November 1998. However, on 12 January 1999, halfway through the trial and after 52 witnesses had been called to testify, the four charges were suddenly amended and 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.

Clearly, at that point of time, the prosecution was facing great difficulty in making their case stick. The DNA evidence, presented by the prosecution’s so-called 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 Malaysian judicial history.

It must be noted that Lim is a mere chemist and not a pathologist. Why the chief pathologist, Dr Halim Mansar, the man better suited to testify, was not called to testify instead of Lim was never explained. Lim, in fact, had no experience in such matters.

What is even more interesting is the fact that the mattress that was examined by Lim was confiscated and kept in an open store that had no security whatsoever. The police witness testified that anyone could have access to the store and there is every possibility that someone could have planted the incriminating evidence on the mattress AFTER the mattress had been confiscated and was by then in the custody of the police. This possibility, said the police witness while under oath, existed and cannot be discounted.

In light of this testimony, most damaging to the prosecution’s case, the court decided to expunge this part of the evidence while the prosecution amended the charges. Prior to this, the prosecution had to prove that sexual misconduct did occur. Now they no longer needed to do so.

In short, they changed the rules halfway through the game after discovering they were losing the game. With these new set of rules, they could turn the game back into their favour. Instead of having to prove that sexual misconduct did occur and that Anwar abused his authority in an attempt to cover up his sexual misconduct, they now had to only prove that Anwar abused his authority even if sexual misconduct did not occur.

What they are trying to suggest is: Anwar abused his authority to cover up a sexual offence that may never actually have happened. If it did not happen, why then would Anwar need to cover it up? That, as far as the court was concerned, is not crucial.

Now, with regards to that section of the law Anwar was charged under, normally ‘section 2(1), Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No 22/ 1970’ is used against someone who has abused his authority for financial or monetary gain. This was the first time in Malaysian judicial history someone had been charged under this section of the law where there was no financial or monetary gain whatsoever.

Further to that, under this section of the law, bail is usually allowed and all the court has to do is just set the terms of the bail. The accused need not even apply for bail as bail is automatic. In Anwar’s case, though, he had to apply for bail and the court denied his application on grounds of national security.

Can you imagine someone facing a charge of criminal breach of trust or theft where bail is automatic, yet bail is denied because the court is worried he may go home and rape his daughter? The charge is for theft, not incest, and there is no proof the accused may commit incest. But that was the excuse the court gave for rejecting Anwar’s bail application though the charge against him had nothing to do with national security.

Anwar, therefore, was forced to spend seven months in jail without bail while awaiting the outcome of his trial. On 14 April 1999, the court pronounced Anwar guilty and sentenced him to a total of 24 years in jail. Though the four six-year jail terms ran concurrent, the court refused to take into consideration the seven months he had already spent in jail. This would be quite acceptable if he had been granted bail but he refused it or was not able to raise the bail money and chose to spend the trial period in jail. But in this case, Anwar did apply for bail and it was the court that refused him bail. Yet the court refused to take this into consideration so he had to serve an additional seven months ‘unofficial’ jail sentence.

Malaysia does not have a parole system so it is customary for prisoners to be granted a one-third remission for good conduct at the discretion of the Director of Prisons. After deducting this one-third remission, which brought his six-year jail term down to four years, Anwar completed his sentence on 14 April 2003. But they still refused to let him go home and they made him start his second nine-year jail sentence on the sodomy conviction though it was still under appeal and the sentence need not commence until he exhausts all avenues of appeal.

About 17 months later, on 2 September 2004, Anwar was acquitted of the sodomy charge and set free. This means Anwar spent an additional 24 months or two years in jail above and beyond the ‘official’ four-year jail sentence. Anwar was arrested on 20 September 1998 and went home on 2 September 2004, 18 days short of six years.

Okay! That is as far as the manner the trial was conducted and the ‘additional’ two-year jail term, etc. But what about the guilt part; was Anwar guilty of the four charges? Well, note the four charges which say:

1) …committed corrupt practice whereby you had directed Dato Mohd Said bin Awang, Special Branch Director and Amir bin Junus, Special Branch Deputy…
2)…whereby you had directed Dato Mohd Said bin Awang, Special Branch Director and Amir bin Junus, Special Branch Deputy Director II…
3) …committed corrupt practice whereby you had directed Dato Mohd Said bin Awang, Special Branch Director and Amir bin Junus, Special Branch Deputy…
4) …committed corrupt practice whereby you had directed Dato Mohd Said bin Awang, Special Branch Director and Amir bin Junus, Special Branch Deputy Director II…

The key to the whole thing is: Anwar was supposed to have DIRECTED Mohd Said bin Awang to do his bidding. In the course of the trial, Azmin Ali, Anwar’s private secretary then, testified that Mohd Said came to see him and requested an appointment to meet Anwar. Anwar did not summon Mohd Said to his office. At first Anwar did not want to meet him but Mohd Said persisted and finally Anwar agreed to meet him. Mohd Said then told Anwar about the accusations of sexual misconduct against him and he suggested that Anwar lodge a police report so that they could investigate the matter.

Anwar, however, did not want to do so and instead went to meet Dr Mahathir who suggested he just ignore the whole matter.

Mohd Said then went to meet Anwar again and he was most unhappy that Anwar would not lodge a police report. Mohd Said told Anwar that this is not a personal matter but a matter of national security. There are certain people high up in the government who are conspiring to topple the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia through false allegations of sexual misconduct so it is Anwar’s duty to lodge a police report to enable the police to investigate this most serious matter and bring the culprits to book.

It was then that Anwar finally agreed to lodge a police report. And it was on the persistent prodding of Mohd Said. It was not Anwar’s idea. Anwar, on the advice of the Prime Minister, was against taking any form of action.

And this was never denied by Mohd Said.

Mohd Said, in fact, sent two reports to the Prime Minister saying that the allegations against Anwar were baseless and not true. When asked to produce a copy of these reports, Mohd Said testified he had misplaced them and could not find them. The only alternative then would be to subpoena the Prime Minister to court and allow him to testify whether these reports existed or not.

But the court would not allow the Prime Minister to be brought to court so this matter could not be proven. And Mohd Said never denied the existence of these reports. He just said he could not produce them as evidence as he had lost them.

Anwar could have proven he never abused his authority by DIRECTING Mohd Said as alleged. Instead, it was Mohd Said who directed Anwar. And Mohd Said never denied this. And the one man who could prove this, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, refused to go to court or reveal Mohd Said’s reports that would absolve Anwar of any crime.

Yes, there are certainly strong grounds for the King to pardon Anwar. And if Pak Lah is the Islamic leader and propagator of Islam Hadhari as he claims to be, then he has no choice but to grant Anwar a pardon, whether it is politically correct or not. After all, the government did keep him in jail two years longer than his ‘official’ sentence. So they not only got their pound of flesh but blood as well.