If I were a lawyer…..

Anwar Ibrahim’s lawyer, Karpal Singh, told the court that there are two ‘black hands’ at work in framing his client on sodomy charges. Anwar’s defence team plans to subpoena both Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and his wife, Rosmah Mansor, to testify during the trial. Understandably, the court would either block this move, like it did in the Sodomy 1 trial, or, if they were put on the stand, they would be ‘hostile witnesses’. Let us imagine what would probably happen if it ever does happen.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

If I were a lawyer,

Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.

All day long I’d biddy biddy bum.

If I were Anwar’s lawyer.

I wouldn’t have to work hard.

Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.

I would put Najib onto the stand.

Yidle-diddle-didle-didle man.

Sung to the song ‘If I Were a Rich Man’ from the musical ‘Fiddler on the Roof’

*************************************************

Karpal: Did you not at first deny that you ever met Saiful?

DPP: Objection, Your honour. The witness has already confirmed that he did meet Saiful. What is the motive of the Defence in raising this issue?

Karpal: Sit down. Why are you so nervous? This is only my first question and you already object. Even before I can finish asking my question you are jumping up from your seat.

Judge: Yes, what is the motive in raising this question?

Karpal: Your Honour, the Defence wishes to establish that there is a political conspiracy against my client and that the Prime Minister tried to hide this fact from the public by lying about his meeting with Saiful. That is our line of defence and the Defence is allowed to decide on and choose what line of defence it wishes to take. The court cannot deny the Defence this right even if it may be a stupid defence.

Judge: I will allow it but rephrase the question.

Karpal: Thank you, Your Honour.

Okay, can you tell this court why at first you denied meeting Saiful?

Witness: I did not understand the allegation and was confused. They said I met Saiful in my office. But I did not meet him in my office. He came to my office to meet my staff. He did not meet me. That is why I denied meeting him. In fact, there are photographs of him taken with my staff in my office. But there are no photographs of him with me.

Karpal: So you denied meeting Saiful because you thought they meant meeting him in your office. But you did not meet him in your office. He only met your staff.

Witness: That’s right.

Karpal: But you did meet him in your house, right?

Witness: Yes.

Karpal: And you in fact met him twice, right?

Witness: Yes.

Karpal: And what was the purpose of your two meetings with Saiful?

DPP: Objection, Your Honour. The witness has already explained why he met Saiful. Why raise this issue again?

Karpal: He may have explained this in a press conference, Your Honour. But he now needs to tell this court. Let him repeat in this court what he told the public. Why is the DPP so scared? What is there to hide? The witness has already made public his meeting with Saiful and the reason why he met the young man.

Judge: Okay, I will allow the question.

Witness: The first meeting was because he wanted my help in getting a scholarship and the second meeting was because he wanted to complain to me that Anwar Ibrahim had sodomised him.

Karpal: But you are neither the Education Minister nor the Chief of Police. So why should you want to meet Saiful about matters not concerning you or not of national importance?

Witness: I am a compassionate person. So I am always prepared to meet anyone who needs my help. Furthermore, I was not aware of the purpose of the meeting until I had met him. After I found out the purpose of the meeting I told him I was not able to help him and that he should go to the police instead.

Karpal: But your meeting with Saiful was before the date of the alleged sodomy, not after. How can he complain to you about a sodomy act that had not occurred yet?

Witness: I am not too clear about the dates. I do not maintain a record of the dates of my personal meetings at home. Only the dates of my official meetings in the office are on record.

Karpal: So was that the reason why you refused to meet Saiful in your office and you told your staff to send him to your house instead? This is so that there would be no official records of your meetings with Saiful?

Witness: That is just your assumption. You have no evidence to support that assumption, which is mere speculation.

Karpal: But you lied about the meeting. That is no assumption or speculation.

Witness: I did not lie. I was confused about which meeting they were talking about.

Karpal: I put it to you that you met Saiful before the date of the alleged sodomy not because he wanted to complain about Anwar sodomising him but because you wanted to coach him on how to fabricate sodomy allegations against my client. And I put it to you that you are lying.

DPP: Objection, Your Honour. The Defence counsel is badgering the witness. May I remind my learned counsel that it is Anwar and not the witness who is on trial!

Karpal: May I remind my learned counsel that it is not Anwar who is on trial but Malaysia’s legal system and the A-Gs Chambers.

DPP: Your Honour, this is contempt of court. The Defence counsel is making disparaging remarks about this court.

Karpal: I am not making disparaging remarks about this court. I am making disparaging remarks about the whole legal system.

Judge: I caution you, sir. You are bordering on contempt of court.

Karpal: No need for you to hold me in contempt of this court, Your Honour. I hold myself in contempt of this court. In fact, the whole of Malaysia and the international community feel nothing but utter contempt for this court.

Judge: This is my last warning, Karpal! One more outburst and I will cite you for contempt.

DPP: Thank you, Your Honour.

Karpal: Oh sit down.

DPP: I can sit down but you can’t stand up.

Judge: Heh heh heh.

Karpal: Your Honour, that is a most uncalled for remark from the DPP. And why are you giggling, Your Honour?

Judge: Hrmph…sorry…yes, withdraw that statement please.

DPP: Okay, I withdraw the statement even though it is true.

Karpal: It is also true that you are Malay who received his education financed by public funds and paid for by the taxpayers who are not Malays. But does that mean I must say this in this court?

DPP: Your Honour, the Defence counsel is getting personal.

Judge: Oh sit down and stop fighting you two.

Continue please, Karpal. And watch what you say.

Karpal: I put it to you that you plotted with Saiful to fabricate allegations of sodomy against my client and that…

DPP: Objection, Your Honour.

Judge: Yes, what is the purpose of this question, Karpal?

Karpal: We need to establish that there is a political conspiracy against my client and that the sodomy allegations are fabricated as part of this conspiracy. It is therefore crucial that we go into this issue in depth.

DPP: But these questions are speculative in nature and there is no evidence of a political conspiracy.

Karpal: Your Honour, how would the DPP know there is no evidence of a political conspiracy unless the Defence is allowed to question the witness and establish what really happened?

Judge: Okay, I will allow it. But rephrase the question.

Karpal: Thank you, Your Honour.

Is there a political conspiracy against my client and are you not behind this conspiracy?

Witness: No.

Karpal: But did my client not make many very serious allegations against you?

Witness: What serious allegations are you talking about?

Karpal: Well, for starters, my client alleges that you knew Altantuya Shaariibuu and that you had sex with her and that her murder was to cover all this up and that…

DPP: Objection, Your Honour. This is not the Altantuya murder trial. This is Anwar’s sodomy trial. Why bring Altantuya into this?

Karpal: Your Honour, the witness asked me what serious allegations, so I am just replying to the witness’s question. The witness has a right to an explanation so that he does not get confused like about his meeting with Saiful.

Judge: Okay, the witness can answer the question. But please pose a question and not make a statement. You made a statement. That was not a question.

Karpal: Thank you, Your Honour. I will rephrase the question.

Did my client not allege that you knew Altantuya Shaariibuu and that you had sex with her and that her murder was to cover all this up and that you are, directly or indirectly, somehow involved in the murder, or at least members of your staff are involved?

Witness: Yes he did.

Karpal: And was not my client’s allegation based on the Statutory Declaration signed by private investigator Balasubramanian?

DPP: Objection, Your Honour. Now the Defence counsel brings PI Bala into this.

Karpal: Your Honour, it is important to establish that my client made these allegations against the witness based on sworn testimony by the private investigator who was there the day they picked up Altantuya in front of Razak Baginda’s house. Therefore, my client made his allegation based on facts and not based on assumptions or speculation.

Judge: But what relevance does this have to the sodomy allegation against the accused?

Karpal: If the DPP will allow me to continue without jumping up from his seat and interrupting me each time I pose my questions then this relevance can be established.

Judge: Okay, I will allow it. But I reserve the right to expunge this part of the testimony if I later find it has no relevance to the trial.

Karpal: Thank you, Your Honour.

DPP: But Your Honour….

Karpal: Oh sit down and stop whining.

DPP: Stop telling me to sit down.

Karpal: Stop standing up then.

DPP: Your Honour, this is uncalled for. The Defence counsel is making a mockery of this court.

Karpal: This court is already a mockery. How can I further make a mockery of it?

Judge: Karpal…

Karpal: Sorry, Your Honour. I withdraw that statement.

Judge: Karpal, I have already warned you once. This is definitely the last warning I am giving you.

Karpal: Yes, Your Honour.

Has my client not been going all over Malaysia making allegations that you were involved not only with Altantuya but with her murder as well?

DPP: Objection, Your Honour.

Karpal: What is there to object? Is this not true?

DPP: No, it is not true. There is no evidence that the witness was involved with Altantuya or with her murder.

Karpal: I am not referring to that. I am asking you whether it is not true that my client has been making these allegations.

DPP: You are insinuating that the witness is involved with Altantuya and her murder.

Karpal: I am doing no such thing. I am saying that my client has been going round the country making these allegations. And is this not true?

DPP: What is not true?

Karpal: That my client made these allegations.

Judge: Rephrase the question, Karpal.

Karpal: Yes, Your Honour.

Are you aware that my client has been going all over Malaysia making allegations that you were involved not only with Altantuya but with her murder as well?

Witness: Yes, I am aware.

Karpal: And was this why you plotted and conspired to fabricate this sodomy allegation against my client?

DPP: Objection, Your Honour. There is no evidence to suggest that there is any conspiracy to fabricate allegations of sodomy against the accused. This is mere conjecture.

Karpal: If the DPP keeps interrupting me and objects to all my questions how will we ever establish the truth, Your Honour?

Judge: Rephrase the question, Karpal.

Karpal: Yes, Your Honour. I will rephrase the question.

Has my client been saying nasty things about you?

Witness: Yes he has.

Karpal: And are all these nasty things lies and innuendoes?

Witness: Yes they are.

Karpal: And are all these nasty things, which are lies and innuendoes, regarding allegations about you and Altantuya?

Witness: Yes.

Karpal: And you deny all these nasty lies and innuendoes?

DPP: Irrelevant, Your Honour. I don’t see what this has to do with the sodomy allegation. Anyway, the witness has already sworn on the Quran that he did not know Altantuya.

Judge: Yes, Karpal, what is the relevance of that question?

Karpal: The witness did not swear on the Quran that he did not know Altantuya, Your Honour. He swore he did not know ‘that Mongolian woman’. He never mentioned Altantuya’s name.

Judge: Still not relevant. Stick to the sodomy charge. This is not the Altantuya murder trial.

Karpal: Your Honour, the Defence is attempting to prove that the witness has a personal grudge against my client and that the sodomy allegation against my client is a fabrication and part of a political conspiracy. If I am not allowed this line of questioning, then how can this be established?

Judge: Enough questions about Altantuya. This court will not allow this line of questioning. Ask the witness other questions.

Karpal: Yes, Your Honour.

When private investigator Balasubramaniam made his Statutory Declaration known to the public was the press conference not held in the office of my client?

DPP: Again, irrelevant, Your Honour.

Karpal: And was this not why you are angry with my client?

DPP: Objection.

Karpal: And was this not why you suspected that my client was behind the PI Balasubramaniam revelation?

Judge: Karpal…

Karpal: And was this not why you are seeking revenge against my client with this fabrication of the sodomy allegation?

Judge: Stand down. This court will recess. I want to see both counsels in my chambers now.

And that is how the longest sodomy trial in Malaysian history would probably proceed if the Prime Minister and his wife were subpoenaed as witnesses. Finally, the Prosecution will win its case even though there is lack of evidence and even though there was no penetration whatsoever.