DAY 7 – 8 APRIL 2003 (part 3) (UPDATED with BM Translation)

ARCHIVES 2010

By MT Webmaster On Apr 3, 2010

The time immemorial debate as to whether the accused must prove their innocence or the Prosecution needs to prove their guilt was taken to new heights today when the court was told it is Anwar’s and Sukma’s task to prove they are innocent of the charges of sodomising Azizan Abu Bakar.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Anwar’s and Sukma’s alibi may be airtight, but they should be rejected

Anwar and Sukma not only had to prove their innocence, but they did manage to do so, and they did this by providing alibis for the period from 1 January 1993 to 31 March 1993, the date (one night in those 90 days) they were supposed to have sodomised Azizan.

But the Prosecution said their alibis should be rejected because it had not followed proper procedure. Their alibis may be good, but it was not proven the right way, so it should not be considered.

The Defence had earlier asked that the trial be declared null because they had requested for a twelve-day postponement to enable them to file their Notice of Alibi, which is mandatory under Section 402A of the Criminal Procedure Code, but the trial judge had rejected this request.

The trial judge cannot use his discretion in this matter, argued the Defence. It is mandatory and the trial judge should have complied with this rule.

And, now, the Prosecution has jumped on the bandwagon and agrees with the Defence. However, it is not that the trial should be declared null as what the Defence wants, but that Anwar’s and Sukma’s alibis should be declared null instead.

“We agree that the learned judge misdirected himself for failing to comply with the requirements of Section 402A of the Criminal Procedure Code to exclude the evidence in support of Anwar’s alibi on the ground that he did not serve a Notice of Alibi on the Prosecutor at least ten days before the commencement of the trial,” said the Prosecution.

But the amendment to the charges was made DURING the trial – on 7 June 1999 – and not BEFORE the trial. So how could the Defence have filed their Notice of Alibi ten days BEFORE the trial? Further to that, the Defence DID ask for a ten-day postponement to enable it to file this notice, but it was the judge who turned down the request.

Well, the judge was wrong, says the Prosecution, so Anwar’s alibi should be rejected. Anwar, therefore, no longer has an alibi for the period of January to March 1993, which means he can no longer prove he was never at the Tivoli Villa.

The prosecution concluded by saying, “In conclusion, it is submitted that his honourable court ought to exclude the evidence of Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim on the ground that he did not serve a notice to the Public Prosecutor in accordance with Section 402A of the Criminal procedure Code.”

Then, to add insult to injury, the Prosecution went on to say, “But the argument on the unconstitutionality of the trial ought to be rejected because the evidence in support of the alibi, if excluded, would be rightly excluded.”

So, there you have it. The Trial Judge was wrong. Even the Prosecution agrees with this. He broke the law. Anwar should have been given the postponement to file his Notice of Alibi. This is mandatory and the Trial Judge ought not to have used his discretion in the matter.

But the trial itself is not defective. So it should not be declared a mistrial. Instead, only Anwar’s alibi should be rejected. So, Anwar would no longer be able to prove he was never in Tivoli Villa those entire 90 days from 1 January 1993 to 31 March 1993.

Now, that’s one very sleek way to screw the one-time Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia. It looks like it was not Anwar who sodomised Azizan after all, but the AG who is screwing Anwar. And what a clever way to do it too! Use the Defence’s argument. Agree with them that the Trial Judge acted illegally. Then, use the Trial Judge’s illegal act against the very person who brought it to the court’s attention – though it was he in the first place who raised the protest.

Translated into BM by Jason:

HARI 7 – 8 APRIL 2003 (bahagian 3)

Perdebatan sejak zaman-berzaman tentang sama ada tertuduh perlu membuktikan bahawa mereka tidak bersalah ataupun Pendakwa perlu membuktikan kesalahan tertuduh semakin ketara apabila mahkamah diberitahu bahawa adalah menjadi tanggungjawab Anwar dan Sukma untuk membuktikan bahawa mereka tidak bersalah atas dakwaan meliwat Azizan Abu Bakar.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Mungkin sahaja alibi Anwar dan Sukma kukuh, tetapi ia harus ditolak

Anwar dan Sukma bukan hanya terpaksa membuktikan bahawa mereka tidak bersalah, tetapi mereka berjaya melakukannya, dan mereka melakukannya dengan mengemukakan alibi bagi tempoh antara 1 Januari 1993 dan 31 Mac 1993, iaitu tarikh (satu malam dalam tempoh 90 hari itu) yang mana mereka dikatakan meliwat Azizan.

Tetapi Pendakwa berkata bahawa alibi mereka harus ditolak kerana pengemukaannya tidak mengikut prosedur yang sepatutnya. Mungkin sahaja alibi mereka kukuh, tetapi cara pembuktiannya tidak betul, maka ia tidak harus dipertimbangkan.

Sebelum itu, Pembelaan memohon agar perbicaraan itu diisytiharkan sebagai terbatal kerana mereka meminta supaya diberikan penangguhan dua belas hari bagi membolehkan mereka mengemukakan Notis Alibi, yang mana ia adalah wajib di bawah Seksyen 402A Kanun Acara Jenayah. Tetapi hakim perbicaraan menolak permohonan itu.

Pembelaan berhujah bahawa dalam hal ini, hakim perbicaraan tidak boleh menggunakan budi bicaranya. Ia adalah wajib dan hakim perbicaraan seharusnya mematuhi peraturan tersebut.

Kini, Pendakwa bersetuju pula dengan hujah Pembelaan. Namun, persetujuan mereka bukanlah berkenaan permohonan supaya perbicaraan itu diisytiharkan sebagai terbatal, sebagaimana yang diingini oleh Pembelaan, tetapi agar alibi Anwar dan Sukma diisytiharkan sebagai terbatal.

“Kami bersetuju bahawa hakim yang arif melakukan kesilapan kerana gagal memenuhi kehendak Seksyen 402A Kanun Acara Jenayah untuk mengecualikan bukti untuk menyokong alibi Anwar atas dasar bahawa dia tidak mengemukakan Notis Alibi kepada Pendakwa sekurang-kurangnya sepuluh hari sebelum perbicaraan bermula,” kata Pendakwa.

Tetapi pindaan pada pertuduhan dibuat SEMASA perbicaraan – pada 7 Jun 1999 – dan bukan SEBELUM perbicaraan. Jadi, mana mungkin Pembelaan dapat mengemukakan Notis Alibi SEBELUM perbicaraan. Selain itu, Pembelaan MEMOHON penangguhan sepuluh hari bagi membolehkan mereka memfailkan notis itu, tetapi ditolak oleh Hakim.

Pendakwa berhujah bahawa Hakim telah melakukan kesilapan. Oleh sebab itu, alibi Anwar seharusnya ditolak. Maka Anwar tidak lagi mempunyai alibi bagi tempoh Januari hingga Mac 1993. Dengan demikian, dia tidak lagi dapat membuktikan bahawa dia tidak pernah berada di Villa Tivoli.

Pendakwa menyimpulkan dengan mengatakan, “Kesimpulannya, adalah disarankan bahawa mahkamah terhormat ini seharusnya mengecualikan bukti Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim atas dasar bahawa dia tidak mengemukakan notis itu kepada Pendakwaraya selaras dengan Seksyen 402A Kanun Acara Jenayah.”

Keadaan diburukkan lagi apabila Pendakwa berkata, “Tetapi hujah tentang perbicaraan yang dikatakan tidak konsisten dengan perlembagaan harus ditolak kerana bukti yang menyokong alibi, jika dikecualikan, adalah dikecualikan secara benar.”

Jelaslah kini bahawa hakim perbicaraan telah melakukan kesalahan. Malah Pendakwa juga mengakuinya. Hakim perbicaraan telah melanggar undang-undang. Penangguhan sepatutnya diberikan agar Anwar dapat mengemukakan Notis Alibi. Ini adalah mandatori dan Hakim tidak seharusnya menggunakan budi bicaranya.

Tetapi tiada kecacatan dalam perbicaraan itu sendiri. Jadi, ia tidak perlu diisytiharkan sebagai terbatal. Sebaliknya, hanya alibi Anwar yang perlu ditolak. Dengan itu, Anwar tidak lagi dapat membuktikan bahawa dia tidak pernah berada di Tivoli Villa bagi tempoh 90 hari, iaitu dari 1 Januari 1993 hingga 31 Mac 1993.

Ya, itulah salah satu cara yang sangat halus bagi menjerat mantan Timbalan Perdana Menteri Malaysia. Nampaknya, bukan Anwar yang meliwat Azizan tetapi AG pula yang meliwat Anwar. Cara yang digunakan juga begitu licik! Mana tidaknya… gunakan hujah Pembelaan. Bersetuju dengan mereka bahawa Hakim melanggar undang-undang. Kemudian, perkudakan tindakan Hakim yang melanggar undang-undang itu terhadap orang yang membawanya ke perhatian mahkamah – walaupun dialah orang yang mula-mula mengajukan bantahan.