Anwar Ibrahim’s winning strategy

By MT Webmaster Last updated Jun 27, 2017

So it is now up to Najib and Shafee to prove their innocence and if they cannot or refuse then that means this is proof that Anwar did not receive a fair trial. And this is the message the Pakatan Harapan people must bring back to their kampungs when they balek kampung this weekend and they must talk about this while they eat rendang and ketupat during Hari Raya.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

(Free Malaysia Today) – The High Court today ordered the government to respond to a suit by former opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim to quash his sodomy conviction on grounds that he was denied a fair trial, following a claim that a senior prosecutor had received millions of ringgit from the prime minister.

Lawyer Latheefa Koya said the High Court also ordered counsel Muhammad Shafee Abdullah to file his case in response to Anwar’s application to compel the Umno-linked lawyer to disclose his bank account transactions between August 2013 and March 2014.

Anwar has filed two suits: One over not receiving a fair trial, and the second to compel Prime Minister Najib Razak and Shafee to reveal bank account details. (READ MORE HERE)

Anwar’s lawyers are very cleverly shifting the focus from Saiful to the RM9.5 million

Finally Anwar Ibrahim’s lawyers seem to be getting it right. Instead of saying that Anwar did not sodomise Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan and that Saiful lied and that the police illegally took Anwar’s seminal fluid and inserted it into Saiful’s anus and so on, they are now applying the strategy that Anwar did not get a fair trial.

This was the same strategy we applied in early 2000 when we launched the Free Anwar Campaign (FAC). Rather than argue that Anwar did not commit sodomy or did not bugger his wife’s driver, Azizan Abu Bakar, we argued that Anwar was denied a fair trial.

We then spent years campaigning in the US, EU, UK, Australia, and so on, telling the world leaders that Anwar is a victim of a rigged trial. We explained that Anwar was denied his fundamental right of a fair trial and hence he should not have been found guilt and sentenced to a jail term of nine years (on top of the six years sentence he was then still serving for the conviction of abuse of power).

Furthermore, the sentences were running consecutively and not concurrently. So Anwar will need to spend a total of 15 years in jail on top of the seven months he spent in jail under remand (from September 1998 till April 1999) because they denied him bail when he should have been granted bail.

It was Ummi Hafilda Ali, Selangor Menteri Besar Azmin Ali’s sister, who first revealed that Anwar was having sex with boys, men and transgenders

What we did not explain, of course, is that the charges involved two separate cases and not two charges of the same case. So the two sentences would have to be consecutive and not concurrent. But then people do not bother about technical details. They are too busy and have no time for that. They just want to know the bottomline and the bottomline is Anwar was jailed 15 years and seven months when it should have only been six years (after remission) and on top of that he was denied a fair trial.

So the impression we created is that not only did Anwar not receive a fair trial, he was also jailed almost ten years more than he should have. So there are TWO injustices against Anwar. And this really upset those foreign leaders we spoke to, which is how Anwar earned the title of ‘Prisoner of Conscience’.

And what proof do we have that Anwar was denied a fair trail? Well, the proof is that Azizan, the so-called victim, lied and even the judge said so. The judge said the witness is so unreliable and says one thing today and another thing tomorrow. Then, during sentencing, the judge said even though the witness lied that does not mean his entire evidence needs to be rejected.

Karpal Singh told Parliament that there are allegations of sexual misconduct against Anwar and that Anwar should reply to them

What the judge meant is Azizan may have said 20 things, where one of the things he said is a lie, but then the other 19 things he said are true. So you reject just that one lie and not all the 19 truths as well.

The judge said Azizan is unreliable and kept changing his testimony and then says the court can still accept his testimony. That, we argued, is proof that Anwar did not receive a fair trial. And we got the entire world on our side and they issued statement after statement condemning Malaysia and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad for putting Anwar in jail.

Okay, that is as far as the trial goes. Anwar did not get a fair trial. But then did Anwar sodomise Azizan?

That is not the issue, we argued. Even if Anwar did sodomise Azizan so what? This is not about whether Anwar did or did not sodomise Azizan. It is about whether Anwar did or did not receive a fair trial. And Anwar did not receive a fair trial even if he did sodomise Azizan. That is the issue.

Then, when the Federal Court overturned Anwar’s guilty verdict in September 2004 on grounds that the Prosecution (meaning the new Opposition darling, Abdul Gani Patail) failed to prove Anwar’s guilt (even though, the Court said, they felt Anwar did in fact sodomise Azizan), that was when we said, “I told you so.”

Anwar alleged that Mahathir asked Gani Patail to fabricate the evidence and get the witness to lie in the Sodomy 1 trial

On 2nd September 2004, the Federal Court agreed with what we had been saying for four-and-a-half years since 2000. Anwar DID NOT receive a fair or proper trial. No doubt, on acquitting Anwar, the Federal Court said they still believe Anwar did sodomise Azizan (only that the Prosecution failed to prove it), but that is the point we had been making all these years. We never claimed Anwar did not sodomise Azizan. We claimed Anwar did not receive a fair trial.

We finally won the argument and the entire world was on our side. Leaders from the EU, the US, Australia, etc., condemned Malaysia and Mahathir for putting Anwar in jail. Nobody said one thing about whether Anwar was innocent or guilty. That did not matter. Even if Anwar did sodomise Azizan the whole world does not care. What they do care about is Anwar was not given a fair trial and was sentenced to a jail term of 15 years and seven months instead of just six years.

Today, Anwar’s lawyers are applying that same successful strategy which we used in 2000. They need to argue that Anwar was not given a fair trial. No need to talk about whether Anwar did or did not sodomise Saiful because that does not matter. The issue here is did Anwar receive a fair trial?

Anwar’s new strategy is to argue that he is innocent because Najib paid Shafee RM9.5 million

The ‘proof’ we used in the first sodomy case in 2000 was the judge’s comment regarding Azizan’s ‘unreliable testimony’. We even came out with a video on this matter. The ‘proof’ in this second sodomy case is the RM9.5 million that Sarawak Report says Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak paid the Prosecutor, Muhammad Shafee Abdullah.

Anwar’s lawyers have to avoid talking about Saiful or whether Anwar did or did not sodomise Saiful. They must concentrate on the RM9.5 million and just talk about Najib paying Shafee RM9.5 million. Use that RM9.5 million as the ‘evidence’ that Anwar did not receive a fair trial.

“Even if it is true that Najib did pay Shafee RM9.5 million how would that deny Anwar a fair trial?” some may ask. Well, avoid discussing that. Focus on the argument that when Najib paid Shafee RM9.5 million that meant Anwar was being denied a fair trial because if not then why would Najib pay Shafee RM9.5 million?

So, instead of answering the question you throw the question back at them. You answer their question with a question. And argue that Najib and Shafee must now prove that the former did not pay the latter RM9.5 million and if they cannot or refuse to do so then we have to assume that the RM9.5 million was paid.