Anwar’s sodomy verdict shows he has no morals, lawyer tells court
(The Malaysian Insider) – Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim ‘s conviction for corruption and sodomy can be relied on to state that the former opposition leader was not a good Muslim and of low morals, lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah said.
He said the defence of justification against the RM60 million suit filed by Anwar against his former tennis partner, Datuk Seri S. Nallakaruppan, was available due to the ruling of two Federal Court benches.
Shafee said a Federal Court judge had also remarked that Anwar had homosexual tendencies although he was acquitted in the first sodomy case in 2004.
“The defendant (Nallakaruppan) is entitled to show Anwar’s conduct and character through the court judgments and remarks made by a judge to dismiss the suit,” the Umno lawyer said in his submission to allow the defence to raise the PKR facto leader’s previous convictions during cross examination.
Anwar filed the suit against Nallakaruppan in 2008 over alleged derogatory remarks in the article, “Anwar terima RM60 juta” (Anwar received RM60 million) which were published in the Mingguan Malaysia and Sinar Harian newspapers on August 23, 2008.
In his statement of claim, Anwar said the defamatory words implied that he was a person of low morals and that he was not a good Muslim as the money was allegedly from gambling firm Magnum Corporation.
On April 14, 1999, Anwar was sentenced to six years’ jail after being convicted of corruption.
On August 8, 2000, he was sentenced to nine years in prison for sodomy but in September 2004, the Federal Court overturned the conviction and acquitted him.
Then Federal Court judge Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamad, who later became chief justice, said the sexual incident did occur but there was doubt as to when it took place.
The former deputy prime minister, who was sacked from office in 1998, was charged with sodomising his family’s driver, Azizan Abu Bakar, at the Tivoli Villa in Kuala Lumpur in 1994.
Last year, Anwar also failed to expunge the contentious paragraph from the judgment and a five-man bench chaired by Tan Sri Zulkelfi Ahmad Makinudin said Hamid was perfectly entitled to make the remark as there was sufficient evidence on record to justify the comment.
Nallakaruppan is also relying on Anwar’s February 10 conviction for sodomising his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan at a Bukit Damansara condominium, for which he is currently serving a five-year jail term.
Shafee was appointed ad hoc deputy public prosecutor by the government to conduct the prosecution appeal to set aside Anwar’s initial acquittal by a High Court.
Shafee told the court that the defence was allowed to demolish Anwar’s claim because he had pleaded that Nallakaruppan’s remark inferred that he was not a good Muslim and of low morals.
“The defendant is now attempting to justify his defence based on the convictions by the two Federal Court benches and remark made by a judge” he added.
Shafee said Anwar’s recent sodomy conviction could be relied upon because the incident occurred on June 26, 2008 while the two newspapers published the defendant’s remark on August 23, 2008.
