The damage control that did Anwar more damage
By arresting Rahimi and charging him for making two contradicting statements, as what PKR’s lawyers insist, this will only make it worse for Anwar. It will reveal the stupid plan on how they tried to shift the blame to Najib and in doing so actually admitted that Anwar is guilty.
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
VIDEO: Latheefa & Saiful Izham quizzed on Rahimi (SEE HERE).
First have a look at Malaysiakini’s video above, which is a statement by PKR’s cum Anwar Ibrahim’s lawyers regarding the Muhammad Rahimi Osman affair that I talked about in my earlier article, Was Anwar set up? (READ HERE)
The strategy was simple. Distract people from the issue of whether Anwar Ibrahim did or did not have consensual sex with his aid, Saiful Bukhari Azlan. Instead, refocus the whole issue on the fact that Anwar was set up with a honey trap, a sort of sting operation. And the man behind this sting operation was none other that Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak.
And the person who would help them do this was Rahimi Osman, a colleague of Saiful Bukhari, who also worked in PKR’s office. However, that strategy backfired badly and the above video from Malaysiakini probably throws some light on the matter.
Rahimi was asked to sign a Statutory Declaration plus his statement was recorded on video, which I was asked to record, that he had accompanied Saiful to meet Najib to plan this sting operation. Hence Rahimi is a witness to the whole episode.
Realising that this statement only confirms that Anwar did, in fact, have consensual sex with Saiful, Anwar’s lawyers decided to discard this first statement and Rahimi was asked to come out with a second statement, which was also video-recorded. In this second statement, Rahimi said he did not accompany Saiful to meet Najib but that he had only heard about what happened.
This now makes the story only hearsay and Rahimi can no longer claim to be a witness to what Najib and Saiful were alleged to have discussed.
Rahimi then lodged a police report saying that he was detained at the Quality Hotel, which was where I met him in June 2008, and was forced against his will to make these statements and video-recordings. This is probably plausible because when I went to the hotel room to meet Rahimi there were guards posted at the lift and in front of the room door.
The police then summoned PKR’s lawyers for their statement to be recorded and you can see what they said in the Malaysiakini video above.
Two things probably made them change their mind about this damage control exercise. First of all, Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail had earlier circulated some photographs showing Saiful in Najib’s office. However, Rahimi was not in those photographs so this cannot support his claim that he was present during that meeting and was a witness to what Najib and Saiful discussed.
Secondly, when the police raided my house, they confiscated all the videos they found in my cupboard. So, if PKR’s lawyers release a second video, this would show the inconsistencies or contradictions between Rahimi’s first and second statements. And in the Malaysiakini video above, PKR’s lawyers themselves admit that there are contradictions between Rahimi’s first and second statements.
The problem with this strategy was that the focus was not regarding Anwar’s innocence. They wanted to show that Anwar was set up in a sting operation and that Najib was the mastermind behind this sting operation — or, what Lee Kuan Yew said, a honey trap.
But they overlooked one thing. If it is true that Anwar was set up and a victim of a sting operation that was planned by Najib, does that not also mean that Anwar is guilty of falling into the trap? A victim of a sting operation in no way makes one innocent of a crime.
After I video-recorded Rahimi’s first statement, I told PKR’s lawyer that the statement sounds very weak. Rahimi sounded unsure of what to say and he appeared nervous. It could be that he was ‘camera shy’ but it also gives an impression that he was coached as to what to say and was speaking as if he had rehearsed his statement.
They then decided to discard the first statement and do another one, as the PKR lawyers admit in the video above. But the second statement contradicted his first statement and Rahimi refused to say that he was present during Saiful’s meeting with Najib but was only told about what happened.
I told one of the more senior PKR lawyers who were involved in the Sodomy 1 trial, but were not involved in the Sodomy 2 affair, that their strategy is entirely screwed. They are treating this matter as a political conspiracy rather than as a legal issue. Whether there was a political conspiracy or not does not change the fact that an allegation of consensual sex has been made against Anwar. How does this allegation of political conspiracy clear Anwar of the allegation of consensual sex with another man when in your ‘defence’ you actually admit that it happened?
This senior lawyer agreed and told me that this was the problem with the Sodomy 1 trial as well. They focused too much on the political conspiracy angle and not enough on the legal issues. And that was why Anwar was found guilty. And I was told that this was also why some of the senior lawyers who were involved in the Sodomy 1 trial did not want to get involved in the Sodomy 2 trial.
Anyway, the Rahimi affair made the matter even worse. According to Rahimi, he was detained and forced to make two statements, both contradicting each other. And PKR’s lawyers want the police to arrest and charge him for these two contradicting statements.
If I was PKR’s lawyer I would want to just bury this whole thing rather than make the issue more explosive. Most Malaysians know about Saiful but not many have heard of Rahimi. By arresting Rahimi and charging him for making two contradicting statements, as what PKR’s lawyers insist, this will only make it worse for Anwar. It will reveal the stupid plan on how they tried to shift the blame to Najib and in doing so actually admitted that Anwar is guilty.
Where did these lawyers get their degrees anyway? Even I, a non-lawyer, can see how this strategy weakens rather than strengthens Anwar’s case.
