As I said, it’s a kangaroo court

ARCHIVES 2010

By MT Webmaster On May 11, 2010

Given all these setbacks, isn’t it better that the MACC just withdraw the case against Rosli before they are made to look like complete fools, which would then give Rosli enough rope to hang them in his RM50 million lawsuit against the MACC, the Malaysian government and the mainstream media!

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Over these next few weeks, the mainstream media will be fully focused on the lurid details of Anwar Ibrahim’s Sodomy II trial. And already there appears to be a déjà vu of the Sodomy 1 trial.

Anwar is being charged for consensual sex. In many countries, sex between two consenting adults (or many adults at the same, as in an orgy) is not a crime. If no consent, then it is rape, and rape is a crime anywhere.

According to the charge, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan consented to sex. So Anwar has been charged for exactly that.

Hold on a minute! If Saiful consented to sex, then why has he not been charged instead (or also charged)? Back in 1998, Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja and Dr. Munawar Ahmad Anees were also charged for consensual sex. But it was only these two — who were alleged to have consented to sex — who were charged, put on trail, found guilty, and sent to jail for six months. Anwar, however, was not charged (the alleged perpetrator).

In the Sodomy II case, though, it is the other way around. This time, he who was alleged to have committed the act was charged instead of he who consented — like what happened in 1998.

In short, in 1998, the consenters were charged, not the alleged perpetrator. Today, the alleged perpetrator was charged, not the consenter. Doesn’t consent mean both agreed and therefore both are guilty?

Anyway, that may no longer matter because Saiful has just testified that it was not consensual sex after all, but rape. Saiful testified in court that he never consented to sex. That means Anwar forced himself upon Saiful and raped him.

But the police will not let the court have a peep at Saiful’s cautioned statement. What did Saiful actually say when the police recorded his statement? Is what he said then consistent with his latest testimony, as well as with the charge? Or did they charge Anwar for something totally different from what Saiful told the police?

Now, assuming what Anwar is being charged for is what Saiful told the police — meaning consensual sex. Then this would mean Saiful lied in court when he said that he did not consent to sex and that Anwar raped him. This would not only make him an unreliable witness whose testimony has to be rejected, but it also means that Saiful has committed perjury, which is a serious crime. And he can be jailed for that.

What a mess!

Now, while this fiasco is taking place, and with the media focused on the Sodomy II trial, the MACC hopes to quietly bury the case of Rosli Dahlan, which tells of another fix-up by IGP Musa Hassan against his one-time Director of Commercial Crimes, Dato’ Ramli Yusuff.

If you can remember the facts of the case, Rosli got into trouble because he acted for Ramli in the so-called ‘corruption’ debacle. Now it is no longer about corruption, though, as originally bandied about in the mainstream media. It appears now it is a simple case of failing to declare assets. Even then it is now proven that Ramli did, in fact, declare his assets.

Another mess!

Anyway, that story has already been published in Malaysia Today many times and in great detail so I would not need to repeat everything all over again.

In Rosli Dahlan’s on-going trial, Malaysia Today had reproduced the full transcript of that trial where the star witness, MACC Deputy Director of Prosecution Kevin Anthony Morais, was clearly seen to be changing his tale while being cross-examined (read: When cornered, plead ignorance). It is also interesting to see the legal manoeuvrings by the MACC.

Previously, during the trial in December 2009, to avoid the painful grilling of Kevin Morais, DPP Zulqarnain submitted that the court cannot allow questions about Kevin’s notice to Rosli. DPP Zulqarnain argued that the notice was an exercise of executive discretion that cannot be questioned or challenged in court. Since Rosli was not a suspect but was just a witness, ‘mala fide’ was not a relevant factor.

Furthermore, Rosli was not charged for corruption but for failure to comply with Kevin’s notice. Therefore, the ‘conspiracy’ defence raised by Rosli was not relevant, the court was told.

Judge Abu Bakar Katar had no hesitation in throwing out that argument and ruled that Kevin’s notice and reasons for issuing the notice against Rosli can be questioned and challenged.

Strike one for Rosli!

Cornered, and with his knickers all twisted into knots, Kevin sought an adjournment and ran off to London for his Christmas holiday with his tail between his legs.

When the trial continued in January 2010, a former magistrate, and now a practicing lawyer, Adenan Ismail, came on the witness stand to give evidence as the Prosecution’s witness. Unfortunately for the MACC, Adenan’s evidence showed that Kevin had not been honest in his testimony about Rosli being the lawyer who prepared a sale and purchase agreement of the office units bought by Bonus Circle. Those in the legal circle took the view that Kevin must have lied because Rosli is a litigation lawyer and could not have prepared that agreement.

Ironically, it was the Prosecution’s own witness, Adenan Ismail, who testified that Kevin had lied. Adenan should know because he was the one who prepared the agreement in question.

In an attempt to intimidate Adenan, DPP Zulqarnain asked the Judge to force Adenan to read from a statement that he (Adenan) had purportedly given to the MACC investigators who visited him. The law of evidence would allow that if Adenan needed to refresh his memory.

But Adenan did not need or want to do that. Perhaps Adenan felt guilty about selling out his university mate. So Judge Abu Bakar Katar, for the second time, ruled in Rosli’s favour — in that the MACC cannot force Adenan to refer to a purported statement given to the MACC investigators.

Strike two for Rosli!

Then, only last week, DPP Zulqarnain attempted to admit documentary evidence by a ‘back door’ method. Zulqarnain insisted that the evidence in Dato Ramli’s trial must be accepted by Judge Abu Bakar Katar without the need for the ‘maker’ to turn up in court. This is a basic point, which even a first-year law student would know. The DPP was attempting to re-write the law thinking that the Judge was an idiot like him.

Yesterday, Judge Abu Bakar Katar gave a third ruling in Rosli’s favour and insisted that DPP Zulqarnain’s submissions were hogwash and directed that evidence can only be admitted in the regular way — that is by calling the ‘maker’ to testify in court.

Strike three for Rosli!

Yes, never ask a boy to do a man’s job. Now, Rosli may be RM50 million richer because of this fiasco. And is it not as they say: strike three and you’re out?

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

ADDENDUMS FOR FURTHER READING (note the name ‘DSP Jude Aloysius Pereira’ in all these reports)

For the first time, a Malaysian court is faced with a contradiction between the charge against an accused and the main witness’ testimony.

This has occured in the sodomy trial of Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim, who has been charged under Section 377b of the Penal Code with having consensual carnal intercourse with former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

According to Saiful’s police report against Anwar, which the former made at the Kuala Lumpur Hospital on June 28, 2008, the alleged sodomy incident of June 26 was non-consensual and, hence, should have been under section 377c of the same code.

This discrepancy between the charge faced by Anwar and what Saiful had stated in his testimony was brought to the fore today by defence lawyer Karpal Singh.

Karpal, in applying for access to Saiful’s statements to the police as recorded by case investigating officer DSP Jude Aloysius Pereira, has also moved to impeach the star witness and alleged victim.

The defence has yet to receive Saiful’s statement, a complaint which it has repeatedly raised previously.

“Clearly, there is a serious discrepancy with the charge with what the witness had maintained with the questions posed earlier,” he said.

Therefore, said Karpal, the defence is applying for Saiful’s statements that he made under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to see why there is such a discrepancy. — Malaysiakini, 11 May 2010

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

The Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (BERSIH) supports the Bar Council’s demand for the resignation of the Home Minister Hishamuddin Hussein, Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan, the Brickfields OCPD Wan Abdul Bari Wan Abdul Khalid and investigating officer on-duty Jude Aloysius Pereira over the unlawful arrest of five lawyers on duty on May 7, 2009.

Responding to the Bar’s demand for an apology, Hishamuddin has replied that “lawyers are not above the law”, implying that lawyers representing detainees can be construed as a “criminal” act. BERSIH stresses that, such responses reveal a lack of both competence and integrity on the part of the Home Minister who is in charge of law and order issues. (18 May 2009)

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

Anwar’s lawyer Sankara Nair told a press conference at Anwar’s house that the former deputy prime minister would be present at the city police headquarters at 2pm today to assist investigations.

He, however, said he was confused with the wording in a letter faxed to him signed by one DSP Jude Aloysius Pereira.

One paragraph of the letter said the purpose was “to assist with investigation” while the next paragraph said, “For your information, a warrant of arrest against Anwar has been issued.”

“I contacted DSP Pereira and asked if Anwar was going to be arrested and he replied: ‘May be arrested’. (16 July 2008)