DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI KUALA LUMPUR
DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN
PERBICARAAN JENAYAH NO: 45-9-2009
PENDAKWA RAYA
LAWAN
DATO’ SERI ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM
STATEMENT FROM THE DOCK
My name is Anwar bin Ibrahim. I am the leader of the Opposition in Parliament. In the 1990s, I was the Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister until September 1998 when then Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad sacked me after I had refused to resign. He had told me to resign or face dire consequences including criminal prosecution for alleged sexual and corruption offences. I refused and all hell broke loose. My unceremonious and grossly unjust dismissal simultaneously orchestrated with a trial by media under Mahathir’s complete control triggered mass and widespread demonstrations throughout the country and launched the movement for change and reform known in our history as the Reformasi era.
After a series of show trials during which every rule in the book on evidence and criminal procedure was violated with impunity at the hands of the prosecution and the courts, I was convicted and sentenced to a total of 15 years.
THE CHARGE AGAINST ME
First and foremost, I categorically deny the charge against me. I want to state in no uncertain terms that I have never had any sexual relations with the complainant Mohamed Saiful. His allegation is a blatant and vicious lie and will be proved to be so.
This is a vile and despicable attempt at character assassination. In this regard, let me reiterate that they can do all they want to assassinate my character and sully my reputation and threaten me with another 20 years of imprisonment but mark my words, they won’t be able to cow me into submission. On the contrary, it only serves to fortify my conviction that the truth will eventually prevail. Come what come may, I shall never surrender. With apologies to Jean Racine in Phaedra:
“You know how well your tyranny favours my temperament and strengthens me to guard the honour of my reputation.”
Yes indeed, I will guard it with my life if I have to. And if I may bring the message closer to home, let me quote the words of Nelson Mandela in his speech made from the dock in the famous Rivonia show trial of 1963 under the Apartheid regime:
“I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”
Back in 1998, blindfolded and handcuffed, I was beaten senseless by the Inspector General of Police and left to die in the lock up at the Federal Police headquarters. However, it was by the grace of God that a few of the rank and file of the police took pity on me and nursed me to recover from the near lethal blows. There was then a cover up by Gani Patail (now the Attorney-General) and Musa Hassan (the IGP at the time that I was charged in this new episode) with the full knowledge and connivance of Dato’ Yusuf, the current chief prosecutor in this trial. All these personalities were linked in one way or the other with the 1998 show trial and more insidiously with the suppression of evidence in respect of the black eye scandal and attempts to pervert the course of justice. These are the same personalities who are now actively involved in the current prosecution against me. Res ipsa loquitur, as they say, but in this regard I’m not talking about negligence but rather proof of criminality in this heinous plot betraying indeed “the deep damnation” of the conspiracy.
The circumstances are compelling that I elect to make a statement from the dock. And in this statement I shall attempt my utmost to place the truth ahead of the web of lies and deceit that has been spun thus far. To quote Shakespeare:
“And let us once again assail your ears,
That are so fortified against our story…”
Which has set me from the outset of the trial to have been deprived of a level playing field and subjected to inequality of arms vis-a-vis the prosecution.
The Prosecution’s Failure to Discharge its Duties Professionally
1) Even though these matters are done as a matter of routine in criminal proceedings, the Prosecution has consistently refused to disclose material critical to my defence, including: (a) prosecution witness list;
(b) primary hospital examination notes written by the medical examiners of the complainant at HBKL; (c) witness statements (including that of complainant); and (d) forensic samples and exhibits for independent examination and verification. All this has caused considerable prejudice to my defence and occasioned grave injustice. The only conclusion that one can reasonably draw from the prosecution’s persistence in this act of perversity is that unseen hands are at work and it is certainly not the hand of God.
2) Your failure to respond during the course of the trial to several attempts by persons hostile to me to discredit me by commenting on aspects of the trial. These included whether I should provide samples of his DNA; blaming the defence for the delay of the proceedings; and reporting on matters that were the subject of a suppression order. These public comments were made either in defiance of your orders that they not be made. They were made by UMNO officials and politicians, including Dato’ Seri Najib orchestrated through the controlled electronic and print media, such as Utusan Malaysia, Berita Harian, the New Straits Times and TV3. The constant comments by the Prime Minister and UMNO officials in the media and adverse comments on the progress of the trial were clearly calculated to influence you and illustrates the political motive behind the charge.
3) The latest act of blatant disregard occurred just last Tuesday and Wednesday over TV3 which broadcasted a pre-recorded interview with the complainant saying things which are clearly in contempt of the proceedings in respect of the trial. In particular, the audacious portrayal of himself as the victim who is a pious and God fearing Muslim who has sworn on the Quran that he is a witness of truth.
4) But the truth is that even as the trial was in progress, the complainant who was engaged to someone else was shamelessly having an affair with a member of the prosecution team. Quite apart from the consequences of such an affair on the conduct of the prosecution, the complainant’s facade of moral rectitude is shattered by this scandalous affair with the lady prosecutor who herself was also engaged with another man.
5) In spite of all this, the complainant, assisted by the full force of the UMNO propaganda machine, via their media, has gone to town to vilify me. The point is that all comments were calculated to discredit me, adversely influence the course of the proceedings and to intimidate the witnesses at the trial. In spite of all these blatant transgressions, you have persistently refused to respond to any of these acts of contemptuous behaviour.
The solemn duty of a judge is not to sit mute when the law provides for a court of its own motion to issue show-cause notices against those who interfere in the administration of justice. I am reminded of the maxim Judex Habere Debet Duos Sales, Salem Sapicutiae, Ne Sit Insipidus, Et Salem Conscientiea, Ne Sit Diabolous, the English translation of which is,
‘A judge should have two salts, the salt of wisdom, lest he be insipid; and the salt of conscience, lest he be devilish’.
The office of a judge is one of the most honourable in the country; he is the voice of the legislator and the organ for dispensing justice; he holds the balance between the executive and the subject.
Even more significantly, in the discharge of his duties, the judge should be mindful of Allah’s command:
“…and let not hatred of others
Swerve you into error
And depart from justice.
Be just, that is nearer to piety
Fear Allah, For Allah is
well acquainted with all that you do”
Surah al-maidah: 8
In the middle of the Second World War in 1942, Lord Atkin, in Liversidge v Anderson, had occasion to say in the House of Lords,
‘It has long been one of the pillars of freedom…that the judges are no respecters of persons and stand between the subject and any attempted encroachment on his liberty by the executive, alert to see that any coercive action is justified by law’
In my case, Y.A., presiding in an adversarial trial, had the residual power and the jurisdiction to have invoked Y.A.’s powers relating to contempt of court. Y.A. chose not to do so for reasons best known to Y.A.. What has happened is not in the best traditions of the Judiciary. In the ongoing Banting murder trial, the learned trial judge in that case, Y.A. Datuk Akhtar Tahir, took it upon himself to summon a local television producer over a clip it aired during its prime news slot relating to the defence in the murder trial of Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya and three others. A newspaper clipping of that report is annexed herewith. Y.A. Datuk Akhtar Tahir has courageously demonstrated judicial activism in the name of human rights and the essential requirement of a fair trial.
To compound the position to incredulity, the open scandal relating to DPP Farah Azlina Latiff having an affair with PW1 did not concern Y.A. This invidious relationship should have alerted Y.A. in that I was been denied a fair trial for the simple reason that Farah Azlina Latiff would have had access to the investigation papers being a member of the prosecution’s team and, therefore, PW1 would, through this relationship, would have had knowledge of the statements given by witnesses, including my alibi witnesses in the course of the investigation.
Y.A. did not even chastise Farah Azlina Latiff for the illicit affair with SP1. All that was done was that Farah Azlina Latiff was taken off the prosecution team at the behest of the prosecution which was an open confirmation of the existence of that illicit affair. Farah Azlina Latiff did not deny the allegations against her. Neither was PW1 recalled by the prosecution to deny the existence of this unsavoury affair.
The Attorney-General had publicly stated the reasons would be given later to account for the sordid affair. That has yet to eventuate.
Yet, in the face of this, Y.A., at the close of the prosecution case, made a finding that PW1 was a truthful witness from this passage in the judgment as follows,
‘Nothing came out from the lengthy cross-examination of PW1 or from the evidence of other prosecution’s witnesses that could suggest what PW1 had told in his evidence was something which was not probable. I find PW1’s evidence remains intact. He had truthfully and without embellishment or exaggeration in his evidence narrated in minute detail how he was sodomised by the accused on the date and at the place stated in the charge. I find him to be truthful witness and his evidence is reliable and if accepted would establish all the facts required to prove the charge against the accused.’
My lawyers had clearly made the submission that Y.A. had made a prejudgment when Y.A. ought to have only made findings as to who was telling the truth at the conclusion of the defence, in which event, I would have given evidence under oath. My lawyers did not, at any time, advert to the passage above in isolation. They zeroed in on the obvious, namely, whether a witness was truthful or not had to be decided at the close of the defence case. The provisions of section 182A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code provided the judge with that guidance but to no avail. That section bears repeating. It states:
‘At the conclusion of the trial, the court shall consider all the evidence adduced before it and shall decide whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.’
Pursuant to what I have stated above, I have been denied the benefit of putting up my defence under oath. That amounts to deprivation of a fair trial and the existence of a level playing field.
The Court of Appeal going out of line
My appeal to the Court of Appeal over the recusal of Y.A. on account of prejudgment, following which would have resulted in biasness was heard on 6th July, 2011. A copy of the order is annexed herewith. No written judgment was handed down by the Court of Appeal on 6th July. The appeal was dismissed summarily on the preliminary objection taken by the prosecution that the order appealed against was not a final order. Those were the reasons given in open court. Nothing more, nothing less. The Court of Appeal took no more than five minutes to dispose of the appeal.
Unbeknownst to me or my lawyers, there was at the same time a 40-page judgment under the hand of Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak also dated 6th July, 2011. A copy of that judgment is annexed herewith.
Why did the Court of Appeal not read out the 91 paragraphed grounds of judgment dated 6th July on 6th July itself? Obviously, this judgment was at hand on 6th July but had surreptitiously been concealed from my knowledge and the knowledge of the public. The letter dated 11th August, 2011 supplying a copy of this judgment to my lawyers is annexed herewith. As is usual, Y.A. must have had the benefit of reading this judgment which will further exacerbate your bias against me. The judgment is an open and flagrant attack on me to which I will advert in due course. Suffice to say at this juncture that here is a judgment of the Court of Appeal written after 6th July, 2011 which contains harsh criticism against me without my being given the opportunity to reply.
But that begs the question: the appeal had been dismissed in limine on the ground that the order appealed against was not a final order. That should have been the end of the matter because it followed that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. [Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak sat mute during the course of submissions on the preliminary objection]. The matter did not go beyond into the merits. That is what the Court of Appeal announced on 6th July without going an inch further. The preliminary objection is adverted to, not as the main part of the judgment. The major part of the judgment goes beyond. It is a frolic of his own used for the purpose of hitting out at me.
If that was so, why did Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak embark upon a relentless attack on me in the rest of the judgment? In fact, he had no jurisdiction to do so. This is a blatant abuse of judicial power, perhaps in a surreptitious attempt to curry favours of the political masters? Otherwise, how else can one explain as to why he embarked upon such a scurrilous attack on me by stating in the following paragraphs as numbered:
‘[5] This case will fall in history. It will be chronicled as the only known case in our country or for that matter within the Commonwealth enclave where the appellant as an accused person persistently and consistently filed one application after another in an attempt to recuse the learned trial judge from hearing and continuing to hear the sodomy trial which is ongoing.
[6] It seems that the appellant here is trying his level best to scuttle his sodomy trial for reasons best known to him, much to the chagrin of the prosecution and the exasperation of the members of the public at large.
[15] It was certainly an uncalled for criticism [against the learned judge] bent to deceive and confuse the uninitiated. It is easy to criticise but it is always difficult to justify it.
[18] It is also difficult for us to accept that the Notice of Motion was filed out of a genuine belief that the learned trial judge had been biased against the appellant.
[49] The charge graphically described what the appellant did to Mohd Saiful Bukhari Bin Azlan [PW1.] [It is elementary that it is the evidence, not the charge, which proves an offence].
[50] The trial was unduly prolonged. It received wide media coverage.
[56] After such a fine display of judicial impropriety, Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak now has audacity to patronize us about a sound judicial system by stating, in what sounds like a broken symbol, as follows:
‘The perquisites of a sound judicial system are independence and impartiality. For an effective and a strong judicial system, the impartiality of its judges are of paramount importance. But it cannot be denied that the public’s confidence in the judicial system is shaped and moulded more by appearances.
Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak rather ungraciously, and without jurisdiction, took a swipe at the judgment of his brother judges of the Court of Appeal including Richard Malanjum, now Chief Judge (Sabah and Sarawak), with the obvious purpose of humiliating them when stating:
‘[72] Rowstead did not consider the “real danger of bias” test in determining whether the learned JC should have recused himself notwithstanding the Federal Court had earlier on applied the said test in:
(a) Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v Syarikat Bekerjasama-sama Serbaguna Sungai Gelugor dengan Tanggungan [1999] 3 MLJ 1, FC; and
(b) Mohamed Ezam bin Mohd Nor & Ors v Ketua Polis Negara [2002] 1 MLJ 321, FC
[73] Consequently, Rowstead’s suggestion that the request for recusal to be heard
by another judge is quite radical. We categorically say that the recusal request, like the present matter, was rightly heard at the first instance by the learned trial judge and followed by this court.
[74] Rowstead did not consider nor ventilate on section 3 of the CJA read with section 50(1)(a) of the CJA and the Explanatory Statement thereto.
[75] The recusal application housed in the Notice of Motion concerned a long protracted trial that saw the legal manoeuvrings activated by the appellant at every nook and corner in an attempt to scuttle the criminal trial of the appellant for an offence of sodomising PW1. It is the mother of all trials in Malaysia.’
[I had every right to exhaust all legal remedies open to me. No attempt has been made by anyone, or any quarter, to prevent me from doing so by seeking an order to declare me a vexatious litigant].
As alluded to earlier in this statement, Y.A. would have had the advantage of reading this judgment after it was distributed by letter dated 11th August, 2011. This, in effect, amounts to placing, by Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak, alleged bad character evidence on my behalf.
In view of this, how can I get a fair trial or even the semblance of one before the trial judge now who has been further put in a position to compound biasness against me?
How can I possibly give evidence under oath when the DPP has, in his possession, the same judgment which could be used against me in cross-examination? Y.A. cannot be disabused of what has been fed to Y.A. by Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak when delivering a judgment dated 6th July, 2011 which obviously, having regard to the length thereof, must have been prepared well before 6th July, 2011.
This is scandalous.
Then again, why wasn’t the judgment which, even if written after midnight on 5th July, 2011 read out in open court so that I could counter and demolish all the allegations made against me by Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak?
It is elementary no one should be condemned, unheard. This is axiomatic. As far back as 12th August, 1999 the Federal Court, the highest court in the land, in Insas Bhd and Anor v Ayer Molek Rubber Company Bhd and others had occasion, after adverting to the authorities on the position to rule,
‘The offensive remarks made by the Court of Appeal against the High Court, the applicants and their counsel ought to be expunged from the judgment of the Court of Appeal, as it had a tendency to bring the whole administration of law and order into disrepute. Judicial pronouncements should be judicial in nature and should not depart from sobriety, moderation, and reserve. It also should not display emotion and intemperance, as displayed in the judgment of the Court of Appeal.’
Adverting to an Indian Supreme Court case of State of Uttar Pradesh v Mohd Naim, the Federal Court had occasion to adopt what was said there as follows;
‘If there is one principle of cardinal importance in the administration of justice, it is this: the proper freedom and independence of judges and magistrates must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform their functions freely and fearlessly and without undue interference by anybody, even by this court. At the same time it is equally necessary that in expressing their opinions, judges and magistrates must be guided by considerations of justice, fair play and restraint. It is not infrequent that sweeping generalizations defeat the very purpose for which they are made. It has been judicially recognized that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law in cases to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider: (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on conduct. It has also been recognized that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve.’
In Insas, the Federal Court adopted what was said in AM Mathur v Pramod Kumar Gupta & Ors when dismissing an apparently unsustainable review petition which had certain derogatory remarks against Mr AM Mathur, a senior advocate and also the ex-Advocate General of the State. The Court had occasion to hold,
‘Judicial restraint and discipline are as necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they are to the effectiveness of the army. The duty of restraint, this humility of function should be a constant theme of our judges. This quality in decision-making is as much necessary for judges to command respect as to protect the independence of the judiciary. Judicial restraint in this regard might be better called judicial respect, that is, respect by the judiciary. Respect to those who come before the court as well as to other co-ordinate branches of the State, the executive and the legislature. There must be mutual respect. When these qualities fail or when litigants and public believe that the judge has failed in these qualities, it will be neither good for the judge nor for the judicial process. The Judge’s Bench is a seat of power. Not only do judges have power to make binding decisions, their decisions legitimate the use of power by other officials. The judges have the absolute and unchallengeable control of the court domain. But they cannot misuse their authority by intemperate comments, undignified banter of scathing criticism of counsel, parties or witnesses. We concede that the court had the inherent power to act freely upon its own conviction on any matter coming before it for adjudication, but it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that derogatory remarks ought not to be made against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration unless it is absolutely necessary for the decision of the case to animadvert on their conduct.’
Chief Justice of India, Bhagwati, in State of Madya Pradesh & Ors v Nandlal & Ors, in expressing his strong disapproval of the strictures made by the judge, stated:
‘We may observe in conclusion that judges should not use strong and carping language while criticizing the conduct of parties or their witnesses. They must act with sobriety, moderation and restraint. They must have the humility to recognize that they are not infallible and any harsh and disparaging strictures passed by them against any party may be mistaken and unjustified and if so, they may do considerable harm and mischief and result in injustice. Here, in the present case, the observations made and strictures passed by BM Lal J were totally unjustified and unwarranted and they ought not to have been made.’
How could I under these circumstances give evidence under oath?
Y.A., when making the order for the witnesses offered to the defence for interview in court, gave a lifeline to the witnesses in stating in open court that they could refuse to be interviewed. Y.A. did not in doing so evenly handle the scales of justice. Y.A. created and perpetuated an imbalance unbecoming anyone holding the mantle of justice. In fact, the Prime Minister, Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak, and his wife, Datin Seri Rosmah binti Mansor, former Inspector General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan, and SAC Dato’ Rodhwan bin Ismail who featured prominently in the evidence of PW1 came to the interview room echoing similar protests namely, “We are not prepared to be interviewed” with the Prime Minister saying Y.A. suggested this could be done. These were material witnesses compelling the defence now to resort to causing subpoenas to be issued for their presence.
Y.A. has created a position under which I cannot give evidence under oath. I say, with all the force at my command, that I would have been prepared and willing to give evidence under oath but for the handicaps foisted on me, in the manner Y.A. has conducted the trial and in the manner in which the Court of Appeal judgment dated 6th July, 2011 would have come to the notice of Y.A. with regard to what I have stated herein before.
My trial is an adversarial one and Y.A. ought not to have descended into the arena by suggesting witnesses offered to the defence could deny to be interviewed. It did not come within the province of Y.A. to do so.
My alibi witnesses made known to the prosecution were in fact included in the prosecution list of witnesses which was not supplied to my lawyers. They were defence alibi witnesses. I am informed this is the first time this has been done.
In fact, the owner of the unit 11-5-2, Haji Hasanuddin bin Abd Hamid, had been harassed by the police for a total of thirty hours in the recording of his statements which were all video recorded. This was obvious when he was interviewed by the defence lawyers in my presence. The police investigation has scuttled my defence.
To make a mockery of the situation, the prosecution offered at the close of their case an alibi witness named, Fitria binti Dipan, who by their own admission cannot be traced.
THE COMPLAINANT’S ALLEGATIONS ARE PURE FABRICATION
As I have said at the outset, I categorically deny the allegations made against me by the complainant.
The complainant stated in evidence on 26th June, 2008 he arrived at Kondominium Desa Damansara at 2.45 p.m. to discuss work matters and hand-over documents given to him by one Ibrahim Yaakob [my Chief of Staff] to myself. He says he stopped his van at the security post and mentioned the code name ‘Mokhtar’ to the guards at the condominium before being allowed in. He parked his vehicle and took the lift to Unit 11-5-1 where I was allegedly seated at a dining table in the living room. He says he sat down at the same table and started the discussion. He told the court of the crude manner in which I had allegedly asked for sex.
The following appears in his evidence thereafter (as attached)
When questioned, he answered that he was angry and scared and that he was not prepared to do it but purportedly because I had appeared angry, he eventually obliged. It has to be observed at this stage the complainant could have, on his own admission in examination-in-chief, left the room as there is no evidence of any attempt by me to latch the door from inside.
He had further alleged that he was ordered into the bedroom and that he did enter out of fear. Even at this stage, the complainant had the opportunity to leave the living room. He did not do so. The rest of the evidence in this regard clearly showed that the complainant had every opportunity on every occasion to flee but he did not do so. His reason was that he was petrified by fear. But such a reason flies against the facts. Here is a man in his early twenties, a six-footer, physically fit and robust and with powerful connections in the top police brass as well as the political elite with access to the very inner sanctum of power. Additionally, he has also been a key UMNO student operative, having undergone the rigorous training conducted by the Biro Tats Negara of the Prime Minister’s Department. And here I was a 60-year-old man with a history of back injury who had undergone a major back surgery holding no position of power. If indeed I could have exercised any kind of undue influence or mental pressure on him, this could have been easily neutralized by a quick phone call to his connections. As regards the fear of physical harm, it would take a great stretch of the imagination to suggest that I could pose any physical harm to him.
Under cross-examination, the following significant evidence was elicited from the complainant. He admitted that he had brought along lubricant and had himself voluntarily and without hesitation applied it. He claimed that carnal intercourse took place and that it was painful and coarse. However, this was clearly not borne out in the medical evidence in the prosecution case suggesting fissures or tears. After the alleged act, he testified that he had a drink and engaged in a friendly conversation with me. Startlingly, no attempt was made by the complainant to seek immediate medical attention. Instead, he attended a PKR function the following day. In the evening, he joined a meeting of the Anwar Ibrahim Club at my house without showing any sign of either emotional or physical discomfort let alone trauma. On the contrary, he was going about matters in a calm and confident manner. His conduct therefore is totally inconsistent with having been violated. In any event, he neither made a police report nor sought medical attention, notwithstanding that two days prior to the alleged act, he had met with Najib and Rosmah as well having talked on the phone with Musa Hassan and met with Rodhwan at a hotel.
It is obvious, from the evidence above, that the complainant was lying through his teeth although Y.A., despite the compelling evidence to the contrary, found him a truthful witness at the close of the prosecution case. This defies logic, let alone the law.
Then again, the expert evidence with regard to DNA led in the course of prosecution case through PW4, Dr. Seah Lay Hong and PW5, Nor Aidora bt Saedon was highly questionable in that crucial information pertaining to the DNA analysis of both the said witnesses which they were obliged to furnish to the court was suspiciously withheld despite them confirming the existence of such information. The real possibility that the samples analyzed were contaminated and even planted were completely disregarded despite such possibilities coming clearly within guidelines set by the international forensic community which were completely ignored, if not, blatantly disregarded by PW4 and PW5 to fit the prosecution’s case. It is obvious had the said possibilities been explored, the conclusions reached would have been very different in that the complainant’s own semen was found in his own anus, there was ample evidence of contributors other than Male Y around the complainant’s perianal, lower and higher rectal region and there was clear evidence of the samples having been tampered with before they were sent for analysis. In such circumstances, the integrity of the said samples was surely compromised. Furthermore, the impartiality of PW4 was highly questionable having regard to the way in which she completely dismissed the very high possibility that the samples sent to her would have degraded to a certain degree by the time they reached her which such degradation was completely absent from all samples in this case. This clearly points to the obvious reality that the samples sent for analysis could not have been what were extracted from the complainant’s person.
Trial within a Trial
The Gestapo-like manner in which I was arrested and the subsequent detention and interrogation by the police all betrayed the hands of the political masters at work. What was the need to send in balaclava clad commandos to effect the arrest if not to attempt to flex political muscle and to display pure vindictiveness? These startling facts were completely ignored by Y.A.
Y.A. had made an earlier ruling to exclude the recovery of certain items including water bottle, Good Morning towel, tooth paste from the lock-up at IPK, Kuala Lumpur where I had been detained overnight from 16.7.08 to 17.7.08. However, you reversed this ruling subsequently which is something most shocking and unprecedented.
Although in the Trial Within a Trial, I had adverted to the role of Taufik and Supt. Jude Pereira, the prosecution elected only to call Taufik in rebuttal in the Trial Within a Trial. Taufik attempted to produce a photostat copy of the warrant of arrest which was only marked as an ID and, therefore, could not be considered as evidence in the Trial Within a Trial. A photostat copy of a document is not admissible as evidence in a court of law. It was in the Trial Within a Trial that primary evidence of the document ought to have been given if the original record had been lost or destroyed.
The prosecution could not, by producing the original warrant of arrest in the main trial, cure the infirmity. It is in evidence that 3 copies of the warrant of arrest were in the possession of Supt. Jude Pereira. The evidence of the warrant of arrest was available during the Trial Within a Trial.
Even Supt. Jude Periera, whose role was adverted to by me during the Trial Within a Trial, chose not to take the stand despite having had the opportunity to have produced the original copy of the warrant of arrest in the Trial Within a Trial.
It was during the Trial Within a Trial that Supt.Jude Periera should have testified. It was clearly unlawful for the court to accept Supt. Jude Periera’s evidence in the general trial for the purpose of rebutting my evidence in the Trial Within a Trial that the DNA profiling from the Good Morning towel, toothbrush and mineral water bottle had been obtained by unfair methods and unfair means and my arrest, therefore, had been procured unlawfully.
In fact, Supt. Jude Periera’s evidence in the general trial confirms that there had been non-compliance with Rule 20 of the Lock-up Rules, 1953 in that I, after my arrest on 16.7.08, had not been placed in the lock-up from 6pm to 6am the following day. The provisions of Rule 20 are mandatory.
If this was the position in our case, which it was, then, clearly, my being taken to the HKL in breach of Rule 20 reflected unfair means and unfair methods being employed by the police to obtain the DNA profiling from the items set out hereinbefore. The position is further compounded by the evidence of Supt. Jude Periera in the general trial that he did not direct police personnel in charge of the lock-up not to touch the said items despite the police personnel in the general trial before the Trial Within a Trial, clearly, saying that Supt. Jude Periera had done so.
So the position comes to this, Supt. Jude Periera, in his evidence on oath in the main trial, supports the defence case that unfair methods and unfair means had been used by the police to obtain DNA profiling from the items set out hereinbefore.
From the ruling made by the court to exclude the items, it is clear it was based on unfair means and unfair methods employed by the police meaning it was by trick and deception that the police attempted to introduce the DNA evidence.
In any event, from the evidence of DSP Taufik given in the Trial Within a Trial and the general trial, the grounds of arrest could not have been given by him to me in Segambut as this is, clearly, contradicted by the evidence of S.N. Nair and myself.
The question of challenging evidence given in the main trial by DSP Taufik and Supt. Jude Periera does not arise. It was the assertions made under oath by me that my arrest was unlawful and unfair methods and unfair means had been used to obtain his DNA profiling in the Trial Within a Trial stood unchallenged by the prosecution by leading lawful evidence in rebuttal of those assertions. In fact, Y.A. should have drawn an adverse inference against the prosecution for not having done so.
FORENSIC EVIDENCE
The prosecution case rests on the evidence of the DNA and so called “findings of seminal fluid” or “sperm” as they claim. As a matter of fact, this is the only forensic evidence upon which the foundation of the prosecution’s so-called proof rests. Yet, this foundation is erected on shaky grounds though this has not prevented them working in hand in glove with the powers that be to mount an insidious and relentless campaign to vilify me.
The fact is that there is not an iota of evidence, DNA or otherwise, that has ever been found in the premises of the alleged act, not in the wash room, bed room, carpets or anywhere else where such evidence ought to have been found.
Supt. Pereira, despite being instructed to keep the HKL samples (marked B1 to B10) in a freezer, deliberately defied the instruction of Dr Siew Sheue Fong (HKL Forensic Doctor) and also admitted that he was in serious breach of the IGSO, (he even stated he took full and personal responsibility for breaking of the IGSO), when he deliberately kept the HKL samples in his office cabinet for about 43 hrs before delivering them to the Chemist. One must not forget that the alleged act was supposed to have occurred two days prior to the said samples having been extracted. Coupled with this 43-hour delay in delivery to the Chemist, it would mean that the samples were already at least 90 hours old by the time they were examined by the Chemist. Undoubtedly, the samples would have totally degraded. Yet evidence by the prosecution claimed that no degradation of any consequence had occurred.
In any event, even the 43-hour delay alone would have seriously compromised the integrity of the samples in terms of its deterioration due to bacterial action. Also, by not storing the samples in the police exhibit store (which will accord access only to him), his deliberate omission of such strict rules of the IGSO has by his very act, presented an opportunity and possibility of tampering of the samples as access to others was made easier. This was disregarded.
There are also no cogent or compelling reasons both in law and practice for Supt Jude Pereira to cut open P27 (the big tamperproof bag containing all the HKL samples which was sealed and handed over to him), ostensibly to remark them (B1 to B10). It is clear that this act was just a convenient excuse to get access to the individual samples which by themselves were clearly not tamperproof as they were deliberately “sealed” with ordinary and easily removable tapes and easily removable HKL paper seals.
Dr Siew Sheue Fong , as evident in court, was most reluctant to refer to his medical notes during cross examination despite being unable to remember details. During the break he was caught surreptitiously taking a sneak peek of his notes. This dishonest act of a professional doctor who ought to have conducted himself in a fair and independent manner was blatantly ignored. Many a time Dr. Siew and Dr Mohd Razali Ibrahim deliberately chose not to answer pertinent questions put to them by my counsel. Instead Dr Siew and Dr Razali’s evidence was accepted without reservation.
Dr Seah Lay Hong (the Chemist) gave evidence that when she received the 12 HKL samples there were 2 samples that were marked as taken on very different dates, she testified she did nothing to seek clarification from Dr Siew . She further testified that she “gave the benefit of doubt” to Dr Siew. My lawyers submitted strenuously that such acts and/or omissions amount to a serious breach of the cardinal rules of international lab protocols and those of the Jabatan Kimia Malaysia. Despite such blatant exposures and abject failures of non observance of strict rules, Dr Seah’s evidence was well received and in totality when it ought to have been jettisoned in totality for reasons of incompetence and gross negligence.
The defence evidence will show that the prosecution claim to have proof of the presence of “seminal fluid” or “sperm” is completely unfounded. In fact, this purported proof is nothing but pure fabrication, a fact which is not that unusual considering the past history of the prosecution in this regard. If they had had any such forensic evidence, they would have guarded it for dear life rather than let it being handled in such a sloppy manner.
SUMMATION
Your Lordship has failed to ensure a fair trial as demonstrated, inter alia, by the following instances:
1. Your refusal during the course of the trial to order disclosure of material critical to my defence, most of which you thought was sufficiently relevant and which fairness required that you should order it to be disclosed before the trial. Your failure to fairly and properly exercise his judicial discretion to order disclosure was not only contrary to Malaysian laws but violated the international standards expected of a modern state which purports to practice the rule of law.
2. Your refusal to act accordingly either to take cognizance or to hold to account those responsible for the flagrant acts of leaking and publishing in the media of prosecution submissions before the matter was heard in court; your utter indifference to my protestations about these transgressions has wittingly or unwittingly facilitated the conspiracy to vilify me in the court of public opinion even as the trial is in progress.
3. Your failure to order that witnesses critical to my defence attend the trial to testify, in circumstances where their involvement was patently material to the issues at trial and recorded under oath in the complainant’s testimony and admitted by statements made by these witnesses to the media. These witnesses relate to the circumstances in which the complainant came to make his early complaints against me. Nothing could be more material to the credit of the complainant.
4. Your finding the complainant to be “a truthful witness” at the close of the prosecution case clearly amounted to prejudgment demonstrating in the process a clear bias against me. Consequently, you have deprived me of my constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair hearing the effect of which is to entitle me to an unconditional release with the charges leveled against me falling to the ground. Notwithstanding this, you have not only failed to order my release but have adamantly refused to recuse yourself from further presiding at the trial.
5. Your arriving at the conclusion that the complainant was a witness of truth without first hearing the evidence of the defence would render the continuation of this trial an exercise in futility. What use would there be for me to adduce evidence to show that the complainant is in fact a liar if you have already found “him to be a truthful witness” and that his evidence is reliable and conclusive and by virtue of that irrefutable? It is untenable and the law does not allow you to do what you have done.
6. Your finding that the complainant has corroborated himself by complaining to the medical doctors of sexual assault was a glaring error of law apart from it being in gross disregard of a finding of fact, that is, that the clinical finding had indicated no evidence of penetration. Additionally, your failure to question why the prosecution has for no apparent reason refused to call in the first medical officer who had examined the complainant to testify. Did it not cross your mind that this failure was prompted by the need to suppress evidence that might be unfavourable to the prosecution?
7. Your accepting without hesitation the forensic evidence as corroborative of the complainant’s account in circumstances where there were obvious concerns about how those samples were obtained, labelled, stored and analyzed.
CONCLUSION
This entire process is nothing but a conspiracy by Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Najib Razak to send me into political oblivion by attempting once again to put me behind bars. I therefore declare that I have no faith whatsoever that justice will prevail in these proceedings notwithstanding the valiant efforts made by my defence team. As I have said at the outset, this is not a criminal trial. It is a charade staged by the powers that be to put me out of action in order that they remain in power.
In 1998, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad did just that and by his Machiavellian use of all the organs of power of the State, succeeded in getting me convicted for fifteen years for offences that I had never committed. Such was the tyranny and injustice done to me then. And such is the tyranny and injustice being perpetuated today.
Najib Razak is doing the same thing as his mentor did, which is to employ all means within his power through the media, the police, the Attorney General and the judiciary in order to subvert the course of justice and to take me out of the political equation.
This relentless conviction to send me back to prison became all the more imperative because of the major victories gained by the opposition Pakatan Rakyat in the March 2008 elections. Their worst fears were confirmed when it became clear that once my legal disqualification was over I would be contesting for a parliamentary seat and if I won, would be elected leader of the opposition.
It was therefore no coincidence that this new conspiracy surfaced three months after the March 2008 victories and the formal charge against me was made just one month prior to my contesting the Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat. The sequence of events that unfolded prior to the formal charge appeared to be lifted from the plot of 1998 minus, in this latest episode, the black eye affair and the purported victims being led into court as partners in crime. In this second episode, the conspirators have tweaked the plot to make the complainant take on the role of a helpless victim, having realized that the 1998 method of employing Stalin-like confessions and the portrayal of the alleged victims as remorseful and repentant sexual deviants were just too much for the public to believe.
Hence, during the entire examination of the complainant, the prosecution left no stone unturned in their attempt at painting the picture of a helpless, naive and innocent young man who is a witness of truth and whose testimony should be believed regardless of any evidence to the contrary. The fact is that in the entire scheme of things, the complainant, who was just a university drop out working part time helping out my chief of staff, is essentially a pawn being employed by the shady plotters to achieve their devious ends in the conspiracy. And yet it was the decision of the court after the close of the prosecution case that he indeed is a truthful witness.
The preparation entailed in this conspiracy was most elaborate and went all the way to the Prime Minister himself and his wife Rosmah Mansor both of whom by the complainant’s own admission had met him in their residence where he purportedly complained of being sexually assaulted. The initial statement by Najib that he had met with the complainant merely to discuss about a scholarship was a blatant lie only to be retracted later after various exposes were made via the social media and the internet blogs. It was obvious that neither Najib nor Rosmah would not want to be seen to be part of the conspiracy being themselves embroiled in a series of other scandals the details of which have been raised in Parliament which to date have never been categorically refuted. But the stakes in this conspiracy are so high that nothing can be left to pure chance for indeed the prospect of the UMNO led Barisan Nasional losing power to Pakatan Rakyat is becoming more real by the day.
The main thrust of the conspiracy was to fabricate this sodomy charge in order to inflict maximum damage to my character in the run-up campaign to the by-elections. Towards this end, an intense and virulent media blitz was launched concurrently with the staging of rallies and ceramahs where the focus of the debate was not on any social, economic or even political issues but purely on my person and my morality. The plotters for reasons known only to themselves became privy to information which would be used subsequently by the prosecution and went to town in an orgy of character assassination calculated no doubt to ensure a humiliating defeat for me in the polls. But Allah is Great and instead of losing, I won the Permatang Pauh seat with a thumping majority of 15,000 votes.
But the zeal to consign me to political oblivion continues unabated. Najib seems to think that by destroying my political future, it would also destroy the prospects of Pakatan Rakyat ever coming to power.
Hence, nothing is spared to ensure that I will be convicted in order that the UMNO led Barisan government continues to rule.
Having regard to all the above, I now wish to state that this trial is for all intents and purposes a show trial. I say this not to mock your Lordship nor with animosity towards anyone personally but I sit before you in the dock only to speak what I know and what I believe with conviction to be the truth. And this conviction is borne by having been in public service for more than forty years a quarter of which was spent within the walls of incarceration in Kamunting and in Sungai Buloh. The fact remains that I was condemned to imprisonment not because of any crime that I had committed but for my political beliefs and convictions and more significantly because back in 1998 I had posed a clear and present threat to the more than two decades of autocratic rule of Mahathir.
I say it because as I’ve stated earlier, the court’s integrity has been completely compromised and bears all the classic symptoms of a show trial where the script has been effectively written and the outcome a foregone conclusion. I say it because as a presiding judge you have demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt your complete lack of impartiality. I say it because you have consistently refused to recuse yourself even in the face of mounting evidence of your bias against me. I say it too because you have persistently turned a blind eye to the gross violations of protocol and procedure committed by the prosecution while at the same remaining impervious to my protestations about these blatant irregularities that would have without more alerted any impartial judge as to the malice and bad faith of the prosecution.
In the matter of the duty of a judge, the Holy Qur’an commands:
“And when you judge between mankind
Then you judge justly”
Surah An-Nisaa:58
ANWAR IBRAHIM
Apo nak buek annn Tok Sri oiiiiii!! dah akhir zaman niiii memang laa berlambak Hakim yg yg berat sobolah!!!! terimo jo lah se ado nyo!!! kok masuk penjaro pun nasib badan laaa!!!
Reply
Chaging Our Mindset Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 9:39 am
jewshit,
kenapa wujudnya hakim berat sebelah di akhir zaman ni? Sebabnya pemimpin yg tidak adil yg melantik mereka. Maka wujudlah 2 tanda kiamat kian hampir iaitu pemimpin yg tidak adil dan urusan diamanahkan kepada mereka yg bukan ahlinya
wallahualam
ikhlasmalaysia.blogspot.com
Reply
Abdul Aziz Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 11:00 am
Cuba engkau sendiri yang kena tuduh semacam ni. Cakap senang kan…
Reply
Apo nak buek ann Tok Sri oiii!!! dah memang akhir zaman ni berlambak hakim yg berat sobolahh!!! kok masuk penjaro pun apo nak buek annn!! dah nasib badan!
Reply
Alamak b.i plak satu keja lak nk kena translate.. adoiii susah jdi org tk plajar ni..
Reply
Chaging Our Mindset Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 9:39 am
DSAI
hrp dpt disertakan terjemahan ke BM utk edaran kepada mereka yg kurang mahir BI.tq
Reply
The article was take from The New York Times.
August 18, 2009
DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show
By ANDREW POLLACK
Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases.
The scientists fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva. They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person.
“You can just engineer a crime scene,” said Dan Frumkin, lead author of the paper, which has been published online by the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics. “Any biology undergraduate could perform this.”
Dr. Frumkin is a founder of Nucleix, a company based in Tel Aviv that has developed a test to distinguish real DNA samples from fake ones that it hopes to sell to forensics laboratories.
The planting of fabricated DNA evidence at a crime scene is only one implication of the findings. A potential invasion of personal privacy is another.
Using some of the same techniques, it may be possible to scavenge anyone’s DNA from a discarded drinking cup or cigarette butt and turn it into a saliva sample that could be submitted to a genetic testing company that measures ancestry or the risk of getting various diseases. Celebrities might have to fear “genetic paparazzi,” said Gail H. Javitt of the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University.
Tania Simoncelli, science adviser to the American Civil Liberties Union, said the findings were worrisome.
“DNA is a lot easier to plant at a crime scene than fingerprints,” she said. “We’re creating a criminal justice system that is increasingly relying on this technology.”
John M. Butler, leader of the human identity testing project at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, said he was “impressed at how well they were able to fabricate the fake DNA profiles.” However, he added, “I think your average criminal wouldn’t be able to do something like that.”
The scientists fabricated DNA samples two ways. One required a real, if tiny, DNA sample, perhaps from a strand of hair or drinking cup. They amplified the tiny sample into a large quantity of DNA using a standard technique called whole genome amplification.
Of course, a drinking cup or piece of hair might itself be left at a crime scene to frame someone, but blood or saliva may be more believable.
The authors of the paper took blood from a woman and centrifuged it to remove the white cells, which contain DNA. To the remaining red cells they added DNA that had been amplified from a man’s hair.
Since red cells do not contain DNA, all of the genetic material in the blood sample was from the man. The authors sent it to a leading American forensics laboratory, which analyzed it as if it were a normal sample of a man’s blood.
The other technique relied on DNA profiles, stored in law enforcement databases as a series of numbers and letters corresponding to variations at 13 spots in a person’s genome.
From a pooled sample of many people’s DNA, the scientists cloned tiny DNA snippets representing the common variants at each spot, creating a library of such snippets. To prepare a DNA sample matching any profile, they just mixed the proper snippets together. They said that a library of 425 different DNA snippets would be enough to cover every conceivable profile.
Nucleix’s test to tell if a sample has been fabricated relies on the fact that amplified DNA — which would be used in either deception — is not methylated, meaning it lacks certain molecules that are attached to the DNA at specific points, usually to inactivate genes.
Reply
ana tak pandai bahsa inggeris,,,,tolong buat terjemahan sama dalam bahasa melayu
Reply
terjemah lah dalam bahasa melayu pulak….
Reply
When you are in power for over fifty years, every now and then there is that temptation to bend the rules and sometimes even the truth to suit the political needs of the moment. You can be forgiven if this inclination does come up once in a blue moon – though the colour of the moon can be said to be blue every month if you are powerful enough to want it to be so. So here lies the problem. When this inclination becomes the norm where does that put good governance?
Almost daily now we are subject to the painful and most uncomfortable sensation of having our leaders take us for fools. They boldly stand in front of us through the medium of their Television Stations, their Media or even at times in person and proceed to tell us what they want us to know – not what we should know. Is there nobody amongst them that can tell them that what they are doing is like peeing into the wind?
Have the educated, intelligent and rational generation of Malays all left UMNO leaving our nation without some of its best people in government even when we need them most? Najib is in a world of his own. He lacks the ability to make sense of what is happening around the country. Surviving day to day is hard enough for him. UMNO has sworn blood oaths that they will defend themselves from PAS, from DAP from Keadilan from everybody – no matter what. In desperation they have ventured into territory where they violate all democratic conventions almost on a daily basis. When we question the legality of their actions their answer is that ‘might is right’.
When the court initially finds in favor of the opposition as in Perak – they appeal its decision confident that the Judiciary is ultimately theirs to instruct and manage. When a death in custody happens the usual suspects are paraded. A commission, an inquiry, no stones unturned….and then slowly but surely nothing will come of it. They play the Judiciary as if it was their own – and why not when the Chief Justice is indeed their own. Whenever a situation arise that will give problems to them they no longer even have the decency to pay lip service to placate the Rakyat – now days it is deny, deny deny.
Deny there was ever any intention to humilate the Hindus in the cow-head incident. Deny that there was any reason to not renew the IGP again and again. Deny that there was anything wrong in the caning sentence of Kartika but nevertheless no less a person then the Prime Minister himself has asked her to appeal for a reduction in her sentence.
Arrest 16 people for carrying yellow candles and red and white roses who were seeking freedom of religion in this country and yet deny that Muslims stepping on the sacred head of a cow is doing anything to incite another race.
They invoke the name of ALLAH at their whims and fancies and see no sin in promoting the very sins that Islam frowns upon. For surely corruption and greed is also corruption and greed whether in Mecca or Malaysia? That all this has become the norm for UMNO frightens me.
This is the arrogance of power that I am talking about. Perhaps the most outrageous example of this arrogance is their inability to understand that there are another points of view to be considered other then their own. To them any deviations from their point of view is a conspiracy to undermine their ability to hold on to power – no matter what.
This is what I try to do. If by my writing I can turn one person against UMNO – just one – then we are one person ahead towards our ‘brand new beginning’. Do as I do. Go talk to one person and bring him or her into our fold – then one by one we will slowly but surely build up our strength and strike down UMNO and Barisan. Go do it now!
Reply
A precise and concise albeit exhaustive narration denoting that power corrupts and that absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. Given from the dock. Challenge worthy of a human being villified to the core egged on by a tainted judicial process.
Reply
I had a similar experience in a High Court. I had filed an application with the hopes to regain some valuable items meant as hereditary customs to my family in my divorce case.
Vividly I could remember I was punished with a one thousand dollar cost awarded to my ex wife. What did I do wrong, I wondered? Perhaps the Judge was a female & emotions misguided her rational thinking. She was up there, sitting & acting like a GOD! And unfortunately, I was down there speaking to a microphone.
When the other side requested for a date for a hearing on my further affidavit filing, I followed my heart and said to the Lady Judge, “Since you rule for her, why don’t you go ahead!”
The Lady Judge replied, “Do you know what you are talking?” and repeated in BM “Adakah kamu tahu apa yang anda cakap?” I replied, yes I think I know! And added “Yah, saya rasa saya tahu.”
The Lady Judge then read my ex wife application for divorce and ask me again. Is this what you want? Adakah ini yang anda mahu?I relied yah! Yah! Yah!
The Lady Judge then while reading my divorce proclamation continue to ask me in English as well as BM whether I understood what I wanted? And I continued to reply yah, yah, yah in a very sarcastic manner.
Too bad, I could sense her guilt in passing her judgment! I may lost something valuable to my family but I guess my surprise decision to ask the Lady Judge to go ahead had send her a message that she is only human.
Wahai Kawan
Reply
DSAI keep fighting for the justice i am very inspired by your court statement, fight to the end the rakyat is with you..may good bless you DSAI
Reply
adilsaksama Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 6:40 pm
Hey Billy, it is not enough to ask DSAI to fight for justice. What about us? We sit and wait or what?
Reply
Kenyataan ini sangat lah terbukti yg dakwaan si penuduh amat palsu.saya mendoakan dato seri anwar ibrahim berjaya.semoga malaysia diperintah oleh dikemudian hari.kejayaan dipulau pinag dan selangor sangatlah kami hargai dan sukacita.kami akn sentiasa mendoakan dsai.
Reply
Susah lah mcm ni dsai…bukan senang nk me damask n mntazkirah Manusia…klu seseorg tu bukan Islam agak senang tapi klu da lama sgt dgn umno, dgn utusan, dgn strait times, dgn star, dgn tv3, rais, sham, zahid, nazri, din…..susah sikit dato. Kena guna cara igp yg hen tam dsai dulu br bole kot!!!????
Reply
so u all here are just gonna talk and talk?
and u hope change will come just by talking?
besides talking, what hv u actively done in recent months/years to help the pakatan cause (if u want to see change)?
4RAKYAT
Reply
The choice of making a statement from the dock is courageous.It is appropriate since YB Anwar
wishes to show how our so-called judges can be so biased and vindictive.Thank you for presenting your case so clearly.God is on the side of justice.The truth will eventually prevail.
The raayat will not take kindly to injustice!
Reply
god help anwar.god help us.god help malaysia.there is just too much injustice in malaysia.
Reply
no matter what happen ,there is reason …DSAI
you r not ordinary person .inshallah
you be malaysian inspiration in the future
i will make sure that happen .
PS : DSAI you owe me a speech that u promise to make a good speech for me when the launching of `buku jingga` at sultan sulaiman club house .
Reply
This is the main reason that makes young generation has faded support to the government. Political plots seem extremely dirty in Malaysia and there is always a tinted of truth and fault withstand. The political power are deem strong until the truth is disregard by almost every now and then. Inappropriate, mishandling, incapability and incompetency is a main weaknesses of government at this present. Take a good example in handling sodomy case between Anwar Ibrahim & Saiful..it take so much times and so much interruption, the question is do our present court is capable or in a high level mode of competency to judge as such a simple case. The truth is political plots are the main obstacle and the main blade use to cut the truth itself.
Reply
My heart goes out to you and your dear family. How courageous you all must have been .. this is not only your fight for your reputation, it is a fight (on behalf of all Malaysian) for justice, for fair trial, and for freedom. WE thank you for this. It may be difficult to look at this event as something good for the country but it is. It exposes the corrupt judicial system, the greed and power hunger of those in the govt and the political arena .. so intense are they in holding on to their power that they have lost sight of fair play, justice, of respect for others. Where goodness in human vanishes, evil sets in … they will do anything in their power to get rid of whatever and whoever gets in their way. However, time will tell. Keep your faith in God strong … for with God nothing is impossible. How can God who loves us so much, allow you to suffer. Not He wont …
Reply
salam…
diharap bloog DSAI ada terjemahan dwi bahasa…
orang2 kampung dan veteran ramai yang mahu membaca banyak artikel dlm blog DSAI…
tp mereka trpksa menunggu anak2 mereka pulang atau minta orng len ringkaskan…
harap dapat dipertimbangkan ….
Reply
Nama saya ialah Anwar bin Ibrahim. Saya pemimpin Pembangkang di Parlimen. Dalam 1990s, saya ialah Menteri Kewangan dan Timbalan Perdana Menteri sehingga September 1998 apabila kemudian Perdana Menteri Dato’ Seri Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad menyingkirkan saya selepas saya telah enggan untuk meletakkan jawatan. Dia telah beritahu saya meletakkan jawatan atau menghadapi akibat dahsyat termasuk pendakwaan jenayah untuk dikatakan seksual dan kesalahan rasuah. Saya enggan dan keadaan menjadi kacau-bilau. Saya tidak bersopan santun dan pemecatan yang secara kasar tidak adil serentak merancang dengan satu perbicaraan oleh media di bawah Mahathir mempunyai kuasa penuh mencetuskan jisim dan demonstrasi-demonstrasi meluas seluruh negara dan melancarkan pergerakan untuk perubahan dan pembaharuan mengetahui dalam sejarah kita sebagai era Reformasi.
Selepas satu siri menunjukkan perbicaraan-perbicaraan ketika setiap undang-undang dalam buku itu pada bukti dan prosedur jenayah telah dicerobohi dengan kebebasan di tangan pendakwaan dan mahkamah-mahkamah, saya telah disabitkan dan dijatuhkan hukuman sejumlah 15 tahun.
TUDUHAN TERHADAP SAYA
Pertama-tama sekali, saya dengan pasti menafikan tuduhan terhadap saya. Saya ingin melafazkan dalam tiada terma-terma tidak menentu yang saya belum pernah ada mana-mana hubungan seksual dengan pengadu Mohamed Saiful. Dakwaan beliau ialah satu bohong terang terangan dan jahat dan akan dibuktikan menjadi jadi.
Ini ialah satu percubaan buruk dan keji di pencemaran nama baik. Dalam perhatian ini, membenarkan saya mengulangi bahawa mereka boleh lakukan semua mereka mahu membunuh perwatakan saya dan menjamah reputasi saya dan mengancam saya dengan satu lagi 20 tahun penjara tetapi dengar betul-betul, mereka tidak akan dapat lembu saya ke dalam penyerahan. Sebaliknya, ia satu-satunya layan untuk mengukuhkan keyakinan saya yang perkara sebenar akan akhirnya mengatasi. Datang apa datang boleh, saya tidak akan menyerahkan. Dengan meminta maaf kepada Jean Racine dalam Phaedra:
“Anda tahu betapa baik kezaliman anda menyebelahi pembawaan saya dan menguatkan saya mengawal penghormatan reputasi saya.”
Ya sesungguhnya, saya akan mengawalnya dengan kehidupan saya jika saya mesti. Dan jika saya boleh membawa mesej lebih rapat ke rumah, membenarkan saya memetik perkataan Nelson Mandela dalam ucapan beliau dibuat daripada dok dalam pembicaraan tunjukan Rivonia terkenal 1963 di bawah rejim Apartheid:
Saya telah bertempur dengan dominasi kulit putih , dan saya telah bertempur dengan dominasi hitam. Saya telah harga keunggulan satu masyarakat bebas dan demokratik di mana semua orang hidup bersama dalam keharmonian dan dengan peluang sama rata. Ia seorang yang ideal yang mana saya berharap untuk hidup selama dan mencapai. Tetapi kalau perlu jadi, ia seorang yang ideal yang saya disediakan mati.”
Kembali dalam 1998, menutup mata dan digari, saya telah dipukul tidak munasabah oleh Inspector General of Police dan meninggalkan mati dalam mengunci di Federal Police ibu pejabat. Bagaimanapun , ia ialah dengan izin Tuhan yang beberapa daripada anggota tentera polis berasa kasihan terhadap saya dan memelihara saya pulih dari tiupan yang hampir maut. Terdapat kemudian satu menyembunyikan oleh Gani Patail (sekarang Peguam Negara) dan Musa Hassan (IGP pada masa yang saya telah dituduh dalam episod baru ini) dengan pengetahuan lengkap dan terbiar Dato’ Yusuf, pendakwa ketua semasa dalam perbicaraan ini. Semua personaliti-personaliti ini telah disambung dalam satu cara atau yang lain dengan 1998 pembicaraan tunjukan dan lebih merbahayakan dengan penindasan bukti dalam penghormatan skandal mata lebam dan percubaan memesongkan kursus keadilan. Ini ialah personaliti-personaliti sama yang kini terlibat secara aktif dalam pendakwaan semasa terhadap saya. Loquitur Res ipsa, ketika mereka berkata, tetapi dalam perhatian ini saya tidak bercakap tentang kecuaian tetapi bukti jenayah dalam plot kejam ini mengkhianati sesungguhnya “kutukan dalam” konspirasi.
Keadaan-keadaan menambat perhatian yang saya memilih untuk membuat satu kenyataan daripada dok. Dan dalam kenyataan ini saya akan cuba saya amat meletakkan perkara sebenar mendahului web ini penipuan-penipuan dan penipuan yang telah diputarkan setakat ini. Untuk memetik Shakespeare:.
Dan mari kita sekali lagi menyerang telinga anda,
Itu sungguh diperkuatkan terhadap cerita kami…”
Yang mana telah menyediakan saya dari permulaan perbicaraan telah dihilangkan persaingan adil dan bawah ketaksamaan senjata berbanding dengan pendakwaan.
Kegagalan Pendakwaan Melaksanakan Tugas-tugasnya Secara Profesional
1) Walaupun hal-hal ini melakukan kerana satu perkara rutin dalam prosiding jenayah, Prosecution telah dengan konsisten enggan untuk mendedahkan bahan kritikal bagi pertahanan saya, termasuk: (satu) senarai saksi pendakwaan;
(b) pemeriksaan hospital utama nota-nota ditulis oleh pemeriksa-pemeriksa perubatan pengadu di HBKL; (c) kenyataan saksi (termasuk daripada pengadu); dan (d) contoh-contoh forensik dan barang-barang pameran untuk peperiksaan bebas dan pengesahan. Semua sebegini telah menyebabkan prasangka banyak bagi pertahanan saya dan menyebabkan ketidakadilan yang serius. Satu-satunya kesimpulan itu yang itu boleh agak menarik dari ketabahan pendakwaan dalam perbuatan ini kesalahan adalah tangan tersembunyi berada di kerja dan ia sudah tentu bukan kuasa Tuhan.
2) Kegagalan anda menjawab semasa sepanjang perbicaraan bagi beberapa percubaan oleh orang-orang bermusuhan kepada saya mencela saya dengan mengulas mengenai aspek-aspek perbicaraan. Ini termasuk sama ada saya perlu menyediakan contoh-contoh DNAnya; menyalahkan pertahanan untuk kelewatan prosiding; dan melaporkan hal-hal yang perkara perintah penindasan. Komen awam ini telah dibuat salah satu dalam bantahan arahan anda bahawa mereka bukan dijadikan. Mereka telah dibuat oleh pegawai-pegawai UMNO dan ahli-ahli politik, termasuk Dato’ Seri Najib merancang melalui terkawal elektronik dan media cetak, seperti Utusan Malaysia, Berita Harian, New Straits Times and TV3. Komen-komen malar oleh Perdana Menteri dan UMNO pegawai-pegawai dalam media dan komen-komen buruk pada kemajuan perbicaraan dengan jelas dikira untuk mempengaruhi anda dan menjelaskan motif politik di belakang tuduhan.
3) Tindakan terakhir dengan jelas tidak menghiraukan berlaku hanya Selasa lepas dan Rabu atas TV3 yang mengumumkan satu temu duga dirakamkan terdahulu dengan benda-benda pepatah pengadu yang jelas dalam penghinaan prosiding dalam penghormatan perbicaraan. Khususnya, penggambaran berani dirinya sendiri sebagai mangsa yang ialah seorang yang warak dan Tuhan takut Islam yang telah bersumpah pada Quran yang dia seorang saksi kebenaran.
4) Tetapi perkara sebenar adalah walaupun perbicaraan berada dalam kemajuan, pengadu yang telah bertunang bagi orang lain tanpa rasa malu mempunyai hubungan dengan seorang ahli pasukan pendakwaan. Agak terasing dari akibat-akibat urusan sedemikian pada kelakuan pendakwaan, muka depan kejujuran moral pengadu dihancurkan oleh urusan memeranjatkan ini dengan pendakwa wanita yang mana beliau sendiri juga melibatkan diri dengan seorang lagi lelaki.
5) Meskipun semua ini, pengadu, dibantu oleh tenaga penuh jentera propaganda UMNO, melalui media mereka, telah pergi kepada bandar menghina saya. Titik itu sahajakah komen-komen dikira untuk mencela saya, berlawanan mempengaruhi kursus prosiding dan mengugut saksi-saksi pada pembicaraan itu. Meskipun semua salah laku terang terangan ini, anda miliki dengan tekun enggan untuk bertindak balas terhadap mana-mana daripada akta-akta ini kelakuan menghina.
Tanggungjawab yang berat seorang hakim adalah tidak untuk duduk bisu apabila undang-undang menyara sebuah mahkamah usulnya sendiri mengeluarkan tunjuk sebab memberitahu menentang mereka yang campur tangan dalam pentadbiran keadilan. Saya diingatkan pepatah Judex Habere Debet Duos Sales, Salem Sapicutiae, Ne Sit Insipidus, Et Salem Conscientiea, Ne Sit Diabolous, terjemahan bahasa Inggeris di mana ialah,
‘Seorang hakim sepatutnya mempunyai dua garam, garam kebijaksanaan, supaya dia jadi tawar; dan garam suara hati, supaya dia jadi jahat’.
Pejabat seorang hakim ialah salah satu paling mulia dalam negara; dia suara penggubal dan organ untuk melaksanakan keadilan; dia memegang baki antara eksekutif dan perkara.
Malah lebih nyata sekali, dalam pelepasan tugas beliau, hakim itu seharusnya prihatin titah perintah Allah:
“…dan membenarkan bukan kebencian lainnya
Membelok anda ke dalam ralat
Dan berlepas dari keadilan.
Sekadar menjadi, bahawa lebih dekat untuk iman
Fear Allah, kepada Allah ialah
biasa dengan semua yang anda buat”
Surah al-maidah: 8
Di tengah Perang Dunia Kedua dalam 1942, Lord Atkin, dalam Liversidge v Anderson, mempunyai peristiwa mengatakan dalam Dewan Pertuanan,
‘Ia telah lama satu daripada tiang-tiang kebebasan…itu hakim-hakim bukan respecters orang-orang dan menghalang perkara dan mana-mana pencerobohan percubaan pada kebebasannya oleh eksekutif, berjaga-jaga melihat yang mana-mana tindakan memaksa dijustifikasikan dengan undang-undang’
Dalam kes saya, Y.A., mengetuai dalam satu perbicaraan berlawanan, mempunyai kuasa baki dan bidang kuasa mempunyai menggunakan Y.A.’s memberi kuasa berkaitan dengan penghinaan
Untuk sebatian kedudukan untuk kesangsian, skandal terbuka berkaitan dengan DPP Farah Azlina Latiff mempunyai hubungan dengan PW1 tidak membimbangkan Y.A. Hubungan tidak menyenangkan ini sepatutnya berwaspada Y.A. dalam yang saya telah diadakan menafikan satu perbicaraan yang adil untuk alasan mudah yang Farah Azlina Latiff mungkin ada mengakses kepada kertas siasatan menjadi seorang ahli pasukan pendakwaan dan oleh itu, PW1 akan, melalui hubungan ini, mungkin ada pengetahuan kenyataan-kenyataan diberi oleh saksi-saksi, termasuk alibi saya menyaksikan dalam kursus siasatan.
Y.A. langsung tidak mengkritik Farah Azlina Latiff untuk hubungan haram dengan SP1. Semua yang telah dilakukan ialah Farah Azlina Latiff berlepas pasukan pendakwaan di perintah pendakwaan yang mana ialah satu pengesahan terbuka kewujudan hubungan haram itu. Farah Azlina Latiff tidak disangkalkan tuduhan-tuduhan menentang dia. Begitu juga PW1 ditarik balik oleh pendakwaan menafikan kewujudan urusan tidak baik ini.
Peguam Negara telah menyatakan secara terbuka alasan-alasan akan diberi kemudian menjelaskan urusan buruk. Itu masih belum eventuate.
Namun, berhadapan dengan ini, Y.A., di hampir kes pendakwaan, membuat satu penemuan yang PW1 ialah satu saksi sebenar dari laluan ini dalam penghakiman seperti berikut,
‘Tiada apa-apa keluar dari pemeriksaan balas panjang PW1 atau dari keterangan itu saksi-saksi pendakwaan lain yang boleh mencadangkan apa PW1 telah memberitahu dalam keterangan beliau adalah sesuatu yang mana tidak berkemungkinan. Saya mencari bukti PW1 tetap tidak termusnah. Dia mempunyai sebenarnya dan tanpa hiasan atau tokok tambah dalam keterangan beliau diceritakan dalam butiran minit bagaimana dia telah diliwat oleh tertuduh pada tarikh dan di tempat menyatakan dalam tuduhan. Saya menemukannya menjadi saksi sebenar dan keterangan beliau boleh dipercayai dan jika menerima akan mewujudkan semua fakta itu memerlukan untuk membuktikan tuduhan menentang tertuduh.’
Peguam-peguam saya telah dengan jelas membuat penyerahan yang Y.A. sekiranya membuat prejudgment apabila Y.A. sepatutnya hanya membuat penemuan-penemuan sebagai untuk yang memberitahu perkara sebenar di kesimpulan pertahanan , di mana acara, saya akan memberi bukti di bawah sumpah. Peguam-peguam saya tidak, pada bila-bila masa, merujuk bagi laluan di atas dalam pengasingan. Mereka membidik menyertai sesuatu jelas, iaitu, sama ada seorang saksi sebenar atau bukan perlu diputuskan di hampir kes pembelaan. Peruntukan-peruntukan seksyen 182A(1) Criminal Procedure Code menyediakan hakim itu dengan bimbingan itu tetapi menemui jalan buntu. Beruang seksyen itu mengulang. Ia menyatakan Di kesimpulan perbicaraan, mahkamah akan dipertimbangkan semua bukti mengemukakan sebelum ia dan akan memutuskan samada pendakwaan telah membuktikan kesnya melampaui keraguan munasabah.’
Dalam menjalankan apa saya telah menyatakan di atas, saya telah dinafikan manfaat meletakkan naik pertahanan saya di bawah sumpah. Itu berjumlah pelucutan satu perbicaraan yang adil dan kewujudan persaingan adil.
Mahkamah Rayuan pergi tidak betul
Rayuan saya bagi Mahkamah Rayuan atas recusal Y.A. pada akaun prejudgment , di mana akan menyebabkan dalam kepincangan telah didengar pada 6hb Julai, 2011. Satu salinan perintah ditambah bersama. Tiada penghakiman bertulis diturunkan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan pada 6hb Julai. Rayuan disingkirkan terus pada bantahan permulaan diambil oleh pendakwaan yang perintah merayu terhadap bukan satu perintah terakhir. Itu ialah alasan yang diberi dalam mahkamah terbuka. Tiada apa-apa lebih banyak, tiada apa-apa kurang. Mahkamah Rayuan mengambil tidak lebih daripada lima minit membuang rayuan.
Tanpa diketahui kepada saya atau peguam-peguam saya, terdapat pada masa yang sama penghakiman 40 halaman di bawah tangan Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak juga bertarikh 6hb Julai, 2011. Satu salinan itu penghakiman ditambah bersama.
Mengapa Mahkamah Rayuan bukan membacakan 91 memerenggan alasan pengadilan bertarikh 6hb Julai pada 6hb Julai sendiri? Nyata, penghakiman ini berada di tangan pada 6hb Julai tetapi telah secara diam-diam disembunyikan dari pengetahuan saya dan pengetahuan orang awam. Surat itu bertarikh 11hb Ogos, 2011 membekalkan satu salinan penghakiman ini bagi peguam-peguam saya ditambah bersama. Sebagai biasa, Y.A. mesti mempunyai manfaat membaca penghakiman ini yang akan selanjutnya memburukkan lagi kecenderungan anda terhadap saya. Penghakiman ialah satu serangan terbuka dan terang-terangan terhadap saya di mana saya akan merujuk dalam masa terdekat. Cukup dengan mengatakan pada ketika ini yang di sini ialah satu pertimbangan Mahkamah Rayuan menulis selepas 6hb Julai, 2011 yang mengandungi kritikan keras terhadap saya tanpa saya sedang diberi peluang menjawab.
Tetapi itu minta soalan: rayuan telah dipecat dalam limine pada tanah yang perintah merayu terhadap bukan satu perintah terakhir. Itu sepatutnya menjadi penghujung perkara itu kerana ia mengikuti yang mahkamah tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk melayan rayuan. [Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak duduk bisu semasa kursus penghujahan pada bantahan permulaan]. Perkara itu tidak melampaui batas ke dalam merit. Itu adalah apa Mahkamah Rayuan mengumumkan pada 6hb Julai tanpa pergi satu inci selanjutnya. Bantahan permulaan dirujuk untuk, bukan sebagai bahagian utama penghakiman. Peranan utama penghakiman melampaui batas. Ia sebuah dramanya sendiri digunakan untuk tujuan menumbuk saya.
Jika itu ialah demikian, mengapa melakukan Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak memulakan satu serangan tanpa belas kasihan terhadap saya dalam selebihnya penghakiman? Malah, dia tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa berbuat demikian. Ini ialah satu penyalahgunaan terang terangan kuasa kehakiman, mungkin dalam satu percubaan mencuri-curi menggulai bantuan ketua politik? Sebaliknya , bagaimana lagi bolehkah seseorang itu menjelaskan tentang mengapa dia memulakan serangan cabul sebegitu terhadap saya dengan menyatakan dalam perenggan-perenggan berikut sebagai bernombor:
‘[5] Kes ini akan jatuh dalam sejarah. Ia akan membabadkan sebagai satu-satunya kes yang diketahui itu di negara kita atau berhubung perkara itu dalam rangkuman Komanwel di mana perayu sebagai satu orang tertuduh dengan tekun dan dengan konsisten memfailkan satu permohonan selepas satu lagi dalam satu percubaan recuse hakim perbicaraan berpendidikan daripada mendengar dan meneruskan untuk mendengar perbicaraan liwat yang mana berterusan.
[6] Ia kelihatan yang perayu di sini sedang mencuba tahap terbaiknya lari bergegas perbicaraan liwatnya untuk sebab-sebab dikenali dengan baiknya kepadanya, banyak bagi kesal pendakwaan dan keradangan ahli-ahli orang awam bebas.
[15] Ia memang tidak patut kepada kritikan [menentang kadi alim] membongkok menipu dan mengelirukan tidak biasa. Ia mudah mengkritik tetapi ia sentiasa sukar untuk menjustifikasikannya.
[18] Ia juga sukar untuk kami menerima yang Notice of Motion telah difailkan daripada satu kepercayaan benar yang hakim perbicaraan berpendidikan telah kecenderungan menentang perayu.
[49] Tuduhan secara grafik menggambarkan apa perayu melakukan kepada Mohd Saiful Bukhari Bin Azlan [PW1.] [Ia asas yang ia bukti, bukan tuduhan, yang membuktikan satu kesalahan].
[50] Perbicaraan terlalu diperpanjang. Ia menerima liputan luas media.
[56] Selepas pameran yang baik sebegitu ketidaksenonohan kehakiman, Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak sekarang mempunyai keberanian merendah-rendahkan kami tentang satu sistem kehakiman baik dengan menyatakan, dalam apa bunyi seperti satu simbol pecah, seperti berikut:
‘Faedah istimewa satu sistem kehakiman baik ialah kemerdekaan dan kesaksamaan. Untuk satu berkesan dan satu sistem kehakiman kuat, kesaksamaan hakim-hakimnya adalah daripada sangat penting. Tetapi ia tidak boleh disangkal yang keyakinan orang awam dalam sistem kehakiman dibentuk dan dibentuk lebih oleh kemunculan.
Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak agak secara tidak sopan , dan tanpa bidang kuasa, mengambil satu pukulan di penghakiman saudara lelaki beliau mengadili Mahkamah Rayuan termasuk Richard Malanjum, sekarang Chief Judge (Sabah dan Sarawak), dengan tujuan jelas memalukan mereka apabila menyatakan:
‘[72] Rowstead tidak mempertimbangkan “bahaya sebenar kecenderungan” ujian dalam menentukan sama ada JC terpelajar sepatutnya menarik diri dirinya sendiri walaupun Mahkamah Persekutuan telah lebih awal tentang memohon kata ujian dalam:
(satu) Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v Syarikat Serbaguna Sungai Gelugor dengan Tanggungan Bekerjasama sama [1999] 3 MLJ 1, FC; dan
(b) Mohamed Ezam bin Mohd Nor & Polis Ors v Ketua Negara [2002] 1 MLJ 321,
73] Oleh itu, cadangan Rowstead yang permintaan untuk recusal untuk didengari
oleh lagi hakim agak radikal. Kita dengan pasti mengatakan yang permintaan recusal, seperti perkara sekarang, sepatutnya didengar di contoh pertama oleh hakim perbicaraan berpendidikan dan diikuti oleh mahkamah ini.
[74] Rowstead tidak mempertimbangkan mahupun mengangini kepada seksyen 3 CJA membaca dengan seksyen 50(1)(satu) CJA dan Explanatory Statement tambahan pula.
[75] Permohonan recusal disimpan dalam Notice of Motion mengenai satu perbicaraan berlarutan panjang yang melihat manoeuvrings sah diaktifkan oleh perayu di setiap sudut dan sudut dalam satu percubaan lari bergegas perbicaraan jenayah perayu untuk satu kesalahan meliwat PW1. Ia ibu semua perbicaraan di Malaysia.’
[Saya mempunyai setiap kanan memenatkan semua ubat-ubat sah terbuka kepada saya. Tidak cuba telah dibuat oleh sesiapa, atau mana-mana bahagian, menghalang saya daripada melakukan jadi dengan mencari satu perintah memaklumatkan saya satu pendakwa menyusahkan].
Sebagai menyentuh terdahulu dalam kenyataan ini, Y.A. mungkin ada kelebihan membaca penghakiman ini selepas ia telah diagihkan dengan surat bertarikh 11hb Ogos, 2011. Ini, dalam melaksanakan, berjumlah meletakkan, oleh Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak, mengatakan bukti akhlak buruk pada bagi pihak saya.
Memandangkan yang ini , bagaimana boleh saya mendapat satu perbicaraan yang adil atau walaupun kesamaan satu sebelum hakim perbicaraan sekarang yang telah seterusnya masukkan satu kedudukan sebatian kepincangan terhadap saya?
Bagaimana boleh saya mungkin memberi bukti di bawah sumpah apabila DPP mempunyai, dalam milikannya, penghakiman sama yang mana boleh digunakan terhadap saya dalam pemeriksaan balas? Y.A. tidak boleh menginsafkan apa telah diberi kepada Y.A. oleh Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak semasa menyampaikan satu pertimbangan bertarikh 6hb Julai, 2011 yang jelas, mempunyai perhatian bagi panjang dari itu, pastinya disediakan betul-betul sebelum 6hb Julai, 2011.
Ini adalah memeranjatkan.
Kemudian sekali lagi, mengapa tidak penghakiman yang mana, sekalipun menulis selepas tengah malam pada 5hb Julai, 2011 membacakan dalam mahkamah terbuka supaya saya boleh membalas dan meruntuhkan semua tuduhan-tuduhan membuat terhadap saya oleh Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak?
Ia tiada siapa asas patut dikutuk, tidak diberi perhatian. Ini aksioman. Sejak 12hb Ogos, 1999 Mahkamah Persekutuan, mahkamah tertinggi di negeri itu, dalam Insas Bhd and Anor v Ayer Molek Rubber Company Bhd dan lain-lain mempunyai peristiwa, selepas adverting kepada pihak berkuasa kedudukan rakyat Acheh memerintah,
‘Kenyataan-kenyataan yang menyinggung perasaan yang diperbuat oleh Mahkamah Rayuan menentang Mahkamah Tinggi, pemohon-pemohon dan peguam mereka sepatutnya dipadamkan dari penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan, sambil ia mempunyai satu kecenderungan membawa pentadbiran keseluruhan undang-undang dan ketenteraman ke dalam keaiban. Pengumuman-pengumuman kehakiman sepatutnya kehakiman di alam dan tidak harus berlepas dari keseriusan, kesederhanaan , dan rizab. Ia
juga tidak harus mempamerkan emosi dan keterlaluan, sebagai mempamerkan dalam penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan Adverting bagi satu kes Mahkamah Agung India State of Uttar Pradesh v Mohd Naim, Mahkamah Persekutuan mempunyai peristiwa mengambil apa dikatakan sana seperti berikut;
‘Jika terdapat satu prinsip kepentingan utama dalam pentadbiran keadilan, ia ini: kebebasan sesuai dan kebebasan hakim dan majistret mesti dikekalkan dan mereka mesti dibenarkan mempersembahkan fungsi mereka secara bebas dan dengan berani dan tanpa gangguan tak wajar oleh sesiapa , malah oleh mahkamah ini. Pada masa yang sama ia sama perlu yang dalam melahirkan pendapat mereka, hakim-hakim dan majistret mesti berpandukan dengan pertimbangan-pertimbangan keadilan, sikap adil dan halangan. Ia tidak jarang yang kenyataan-kenyataan umum yang menyeluruh mengalahkan tujuan sebenar yang mereka telah dibuat. Ia telah secara kehakiman dikenali itu dalam perkara itu membuat kata merendah-rendahkan menentang orang-orang atau pihak-pihak berkuasa yang kelakuan datang dalam pertimbangan sebelum mahkamah dalam kes untuk diputuskan oleh mereka, ia berkaitan mempertimbangkan: (satu) sama ada parti itu yang kelakuan berada dalam soalan ialah di hadapan mahkamah itu atau mempunyai satu peluang menjelaskan atau mempertahankan dirinya sendiri; (b) sama ada terdapat bukti dicatatkan mempengaruhi yang menjalankan memberi alasan komen; dan (c) sama ada adalah perlu untuk keputusan kes, sebagai satu bahagian penting dari itu, mengkritik pada kelakuan. Ia juga telah dikenali yang pengumuman-pengumuman kehakiman mesti kehakiman di alam , dan tidak harus biasanya berlepas dari keseriusan, kesederhanaan dan rizab.’
Dalam Insas, Mahkamah Persekutuan mengamalkan apa dikatakan dalam AM Mathur v Pramod Kumar Gupta & Ors apabila menyingkirkan petisyen kajian semula yang nampaknya tidak mampan yang mempunyai komen-komen yang menghina tertentu menentang En AM Mathur, satu penyokong kanan dan juga General bekas bela State. Mahkamah mempunyai peristiwa mengadakan,
‘Halangan kehakiman dan disiplin ialah sebagai perlu bagi pentadbiran keadilan teratur ketika mereka akan keberkesanan tentera. Tugas halangan, kerendahan hati ini fungsi sepatutnya satu tema tetap hakim-hakim kami. Kualiti ini dalam membuat keputusan ialah sebagai banyak perlu bagi hakim untuk mendapat penghormatan sebagai melindungi kemerdekaan badan kehakiman. Halangan kehakiman dalam perhatian ini mungkin lebih baik dipanggil penghormatan kehakiman, iaitu, menghormati oleh badan kehakiman. Menghormati bagi mereka yang mendahului mahkamah serta terhadap orang lain mengkoordinasi cawangan-cawangan State, eksekutif dan badan perundangan. Pasti terdapat saling menghormati. Bila sifat-sifat ini gagal atau apabila litigan dan awam percaya yang hakim itu telah gagal dalam sifat-sifat ini, ia akan menjadi tidak juga baik untuk hakim itu mahupun untuk proses kehakiman. Hakim Bench ialah satu berkuasa. Bukan sahaja buat hakim-hakim mempunyai kuasa untuk membuat keputusan-keputusan yang mengikat, keputusan mereka berhak penggunaan kuasa oleh pegawai lain. Hakim-hakim mempunyai kawalan mutlak dan tidak boleh dicabar domain mahkamah. Tetapi mereka tidak boleh menyalahgunakan kuasa mereka oleh komen-komen keterlaluan, gurauan tidak senonoh menyinggung kritikan peguam, parti-parti atau saksi-saksi. Kita mengalah yang mahkamah mempunyai kuasa sedia ada berlakon secara bebas atas sabitannya sendiri tentang apa-apa perkara mendahuluinya untuk penghukuman, tetapi ia ialah satu prinsip umum kepentingan tertinggi bagi pentadbiran keadilan sesuai yang komen-komen yang menghina tidak sepatutnya dibuat menentang orang-orang atau pihak-pihak berkuasa yang kelakuan datang dalam pertimbangan melainkan ia benar-benar perlu untuk keputusan kes mengkritik pada kelakuan mereka.’
Justice of India utama, Bhagwati, dalam Pradesh State of Madya & Ors v Nandlal & Ors, dalam melahirkan tidak setuju kuat sekatan-sekatannya yang diperbuat oleh hakim itu, menyatakan:
‘Kita boleh diperhatikan dalam kesimpulan yang mengadili tidak sepatutnya menggunakan kuat dan mengecam bahasa ketika mengkritik pengendalian parti-parti atau saksi-saksi mereka. Mereka mesti bertindak dengan keseriusan, kesederhanaan dan halangan. Mereka mesti mempunyai kerendahan hati mengenali bahawa mereka tidak cacat dan mana-mana sekatan-sekatan keras dan merendah-rendahkan telah melewati mereka menentang mana-mana pihak boleh jadi tersilap dan tidak ada justifikasi dan jika demikian, mereka boleh buat mudarat banyak dan kerosakan dan mengakibatkan ketidakadilan. Di sini, dalam kes menunjukkan, pemerhatian-pemerhatian membuat dan sekatan-sekatan telah melewati BM Lal J betul-betul tidak ada justifikasi dan tidak wajar dan mereka tidak patut telah dibuat.’
Bagaimana boleh saya di bawah keadaan ini memberi keterangan di bawah sumpah?
Y.A., bila membuat perintah itu untuk saksi-saksi menawarkan untuk pertahanan untuk temu duga di mahkamah, memberi satu perhubungan bagi saksi-saksi dalam menyatakan dalam mahkamah terbuka bahawa mereka boleh enggan ditemu bual. Y.A. tidakkah dengan sedemikian dengan sama rata menangani penimbang keadilan. Y.A. mewujudkan dan menyebabkan satu ketidakseimbangan tidak sesuai sesiapa memegang mantel keadilan. Malah, Perdana Menteri, Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak , dan isteri beliau, Datin Seri Rosmah binti Mansor, bekas Inspector General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan , dan SAC Dato’ Rodhwan bin Ismail yang menonjolkan terkenal dalam bukti PW1 datang kepada bilik temuramah meniru bantahan serupa iaitu, “Kami tidak disediakan untuk ditemubual” dengan pepatah Perdana Menteri Y.A. mencadangkan ini boleh dibuat. Ini ialah saksi-saksi bahan memaksa pertahanan sekarang mengambil jalan keluar dengan menyebabkan sepina untuk diterbitkan untuk kewujudan mereka.
Y.A. adakah mewujudkan satu kedudukan di mana saya tidak boleh memberi keterangan di bawah sumpah. Saya berkata, dengan semua pasukan di perintah saya, bahawa saya akan disediakan dan bersedia memberi bukti di bawah sumpah kecuali kecacatan memaksakan kepada saya, dalam cara Y.A. adakah menjalankan perbicaraan dan dalam cara di mana penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan bertarikh 6hb Julai, 2011 akan datang bagi notis Y.A. mengenai apa saya telah menyatakan di sini sebelum ini.
Perbicaraan saya ialah satu berlawanan satu dan Y.A. tidak sepatutnya telah turun ke dalam gelanggang dengan mencadangkan saksi-saksi menawarkan untuk pertahanan boleh menafikan untuk ditemubual. Ia tidak datang di dalam wilayah Y.A. berbuat demikian.
Saksi-saksi alibi saya diperkenalkan kepada pendakwaan adalah sebenarnya dimasukkan ke dalam senarai pendakwaan saksi-saksi yang mana tidak dibekalkan kepada peguam-peguam saya. Mereka saksi-saksi alibi pertahanan. Saya diberitahu ini merupakan kali pertama ini telah dibuat.
Malah, pemilik unit 11-5-2, Haji Hasanuddin bin Abd Hamid, telah di ganggu berkali-kali oleh pihak polis untuk sejumlah tiga puluh jam dalam rakaman itu kenyataan-kenyataan beliau yang kesemuanya video direkodkan. Ini adalah jelas apabila dia telah ditemubual oleh peguam-peguam pembela dalam kehadiran saya. Siasatan polis telah menenggelamkan pertahanan saya.
Untuk membuat satu ejekan keadaan, pendakwaan menawarkan di hampir kes mereka saksi alibi bernama, Fitria binti Dipan, yang oleh kemasukan mereka sendiri tidak boleh dikesani.
TUDUHAN-TUDUHAN PENGADU IALAH REKAAN TULEN
Ketika saya telah berkata di permulaan, saya dengan pasti menafikan tuduhan-tuduhan membuat terhadap saya oleh pengadu.
Pengadu menyatakan dalam bukti pada 26hb Jun, 2008 dia tiba di Kondominium Desa Damansara di 2.45 p.m. membincangkan keperihalan kerja dan dokumen-dokumen menyerahkan diberikan kepada dia oleh satu Ibrahim Yaakob [Ketua Turus saya] bagi diri saya. Dia kata dia berhenti vannya di tempat keselamatan dan menyebut nama kod ‘Mokhtar’ bagi pengawal-pengawal di kondominium itu sebelum dibenar dalam. Dia meletakkan kenderaannya dan mengambil lif kepada Unit 11-5-1 di mana saya dikatakan diduduki di satu meja makan dalam ruang tamu. Dia kata dia telah duduk di semeja dan mula perbincangan. Dia memberitahu mahkamah cara mentah di mana saya telah dikatakan meminta seks.
Berikut muncul dalam keterangan beliau selepas itu (sebagai terlekat)
Bila mempersoalkan, dia menjawab yang dia marah dan takut dan itu dia tidak disediakan untuk melakukannya tetapi yang dikatakan kerana saya telah mewujudkan marah, dia akhirnya dimestikan. Ia perlu diperhatikan pada peringkat ini pengadu mempunyai, pada kemasukannya sendiri dalam pemeriksaan utama, meninggalkan bilik itu sebagai tiada bukti sebarang percubaan oleh saya selak pintu dari di dalam.
Dia telah seterusnya menuduh yang dia diarah ke dalam bilik tidur dan itu dia memang memasuki tidak takut. Walaupun pada peringkat ini, pengadu berpeluang meninggalkan ruang tamu. Dia tidak berbuat demikian. Selebihnya bukti dalam perhatian ini menunjukkan dengan jelas yang pengadu mempunyai setiap peluang pada setiap peristiwa melarikan diri tetapi dia tidak berbuat demikian. Alasan beliau ialah dia kaku oleh ketakutan. Tetapi sebab sebegitu terbang menentang fakta-fakta. Di sini ialah seorang lelaki di awal dua puluhannya, satu enam pengaki, secara fizikal sihat dan teguh dan dengan hubungan berkuasa dalam loyang polis teratas serta elit politik dengan akses bagi tempat suci sangat dalam kuasa. Tambahan pula, dia juga telah pelajar utama UMNO berkuatkuasa, setelah mengalami latihan rapi dikendalikan oleh Biro Tats Negara Jabatan Perdana Menteri.
Dan di sini saya ialah satu lelaki berumur 60 tahun dengan satu sejarah kecederaan belakang yang telah menjalani satu pembedahan belakang utama memegang tiada kedudukan kuasa. Andainya sesungguhnya saya mungkin telah bersenam pengaruh tak wajar atau tekanan jiwa pada dia, ini mungkin dapat dengan mudah dineutralkan oleh satu panggilan telefon cepat bagi hubungannya. Berkaitan ketakutan kecederaan fizikal, ia akan mengambil satu dapat dibayangkan besar mencadangkan yang saya mungkin menjadi mana-mana kecederaan fizikal kepadanya.
Di bawah pemeriksaan balas, bukti jelas berikut dicungkil dari pengadu. Dia mengaku yang dia telah membawa bersama pelincir dan mempunyai dirinya sendiri sukarela dan tanpa keraguan memohonnya. Dia mendakwa yang persetubuhan jasmani berlaku dan ia sakit dan kasar. Bagaimanapun , ini dengan jelas bukan menyokong dalam keterangan perubatan dalam kes pendakwaan mencadangkan fisur atau air mata. Selepas perbuatan dikatakan, dia memberi keterangan yang dia mempunyai minuman dan melibatkan diri dalam satu perbualan mesra dengan saya. Mengejutkan, tidak cuba telah dibuat oleh pengadu mencari rawatan perubatan segera. Sebaliknya, dia menghadiri fungsi PKR hari yang berikutnya. Pada waktu petang, dia menyertai satu mesyuarat Anwar Ibrahim Club di rumah saya tanpa menunjukkan sebarang tanda salah satu ketidakselesaan fizikal atau emosional apatah lagi trauma. Sebaliknya, dia menjalankan hal-hal dalam satu ketenangan dan cara yakin. Kelakuannya lantarannya betul-betul tidak konsisten dengan mempunyai pernah dimungkiri. Dalam mana-mana peristiwa, dia bukan membuat satu laporan polis mahupun cuba rawatan perubatan, walaupun dua hari-hari itu sebelum perbuatan dikatakan, dia telah dipertemukan dengan Najib dan Rosmah juga telah bercakap sedang menelefon dengan Musa Hassan dan dipertemukan dengan Rodhwan di sebuah hotel.
Adalah jelas, dari keterangan itu di atas, bahawa pengadu sedang berbaring melalui giginya walaupun Y.A., walaupun bukti menambat perhatian bagi bertentangan, menemuinya satu saksi sebenar di hampir kes pendakwaan. Ini mencabar kewajaran, apatah lagi undang-undang.
Kemudian sekali lagi, keterangan pakar mengenai DNA menerajui dalam kursus kes pendakwaan melalui PW4, Dr. Seah Lay Hong and PW5, Nor Aidora bt Saedon amat dipersoalkan dalam yang maklumat penting berkaitan dengan analisis DNA kedua-dua kata saksi-saksi yang mana mereka dimestikan untuk dilengkapi untuk mahkamah dengan syak ditahan walaupun mereka mengesahkan kewujudan maklumat seperti itu. Kemungkinan benar yang contoh-contoh menganalisis telah dicemari malah menanam sepenuhnya membiarkan walaupun kemungkinan seperti itu datang dengan jelas dalam garis panduan-garis panduan ditetapkan oleh komuniti forensik antarabangsa yang mana mengabaikan sepenuhnya, jika tidak, secara terang-terangan membiarkan oleh PW4 and PW5 melayakkan kes pendakwaan. Adalah jelas mempunyai kata kemungkinan-kemungkinan pernah dijelajahi, kesimpulan-kesimpulan mencecah mungkin sangat berbeza dalam yang pengadu sendiri air mani ditemui dalam duburnya sendiri, terdapat banyak bukti pencarum-pencarum selain daripada Male Y sekitar perianal pengadu, lebih rendah dan rantau rektum lebih tinggi dan terdapat bukti jelas contoh-contoh mempunyai pernah diusik dengan sebelum mereka memanggil analisis. Dalam keadaan sedemikian, integriti kata contoh-contoh tentu dikompromikan. Tambahan pula, kesaksamaan PW4 amat dipersoalkan mempunyai perhatian bagi cara di mana dia sepenuhnya keluarkan kemungkinan sangat tinggi yang contoh-contoh menghantar kepada dia akan mempunyai menurunkan kepada satu kadar tertentu bila mereka mencecah dia degradasi sedemikian yang mana tidak hadir langsung dari semua dalam kes ini contoh-contoh. Ini dengan jelasnya menunjukkan kepada realiti jelas yang contoh-contoh memanggil analisis tidak boleh apa telah dikeluarkan dari orang pengadu.
Perbicaraan dalam satu ujian
Cara Seperti Gestapo di mana saya telah ditangkap dan penahanan berikutnya dan soal siasat oleh pihak polis semua mengkhianati tangan ketua politik pada kerja. Apa keperluan menghantar balaclava memakai komando-komando melaksanakan penangkapan jika untuk tidak cuba untuk melenturkan otot politik dan mempamerkan perasaan dendam tulen? Fakta-fakta mengejutkan ini mengabaikan sepenuhnya oleh Y.A.
Y.A. sekiranya membuat satu keputusan terdahulu mengecualikan pemulihan barangan tertentu termasuk botol air, Good Morning tuala, ubat gigi dari lokap di IPK, Kuala Lumpur di mana saya telah ditahan semalaman dari 16.7.08 untuk 17.7.08. Bagaimanapun , anda terbalik ini mengawal kemudiannya yang mana sesuatu paling mengejutkan dan belum pernah berlaku.
Walaupun dalam Trial Within Trial, saya telah merujuk bagi peranan Taufik and Supt. Jude Pereira, pendakwaan melantik hanya memanggil Taufik dalam pematahan dalam Trial Within Trial. Taufik cuba untuk mengeluarkan satu salinan fotostat waran penangkapan yang mana hanya menandakan sebagai IC dan oleh itu, tidak boleh dipertimbangkan sebagai bukti dalam Trial Within Trial. Satu salinan fotostat satu dokumen bukan boleh diterima seperti bukti di mahkamah undang-undang. Ia berada dalam Trial Within Trial yang tanda utama dokumen itu sepatutnya telah diberi jika rekod asal telah hilang atau dimusnahkan Pendakwaan tidak boleh, dengan menghasilkan waran asal penangkapan dalam perbicaraan utama, menyembuhkan kelemahan. Ia berada dalam bukti yang 3 salinan-salinan waran penangkapan berada dalam milikan Supt. Jude Pereira. Bukti waran penangkapan boleh didapati semasa Trial Within Trial.
Supt Teratur. Jude Periera, yang peranan dirujuk untuk oleh saya semasa Trial Within Trial, memilih untuk tidak ambil pendirian walaupun mempunyai peluang mempunyai menghasilkan salinan asal waran penangkapan dalam Trial Within Trial.
Ia ialah semasa Trial Within Trial yang Supt.Jude Periera sepatutnya dibuktikan. Ia dengan jelas menyalahi undang-undang untuk mahkamah menerima Supt. Bukti Jude Periera dalam perbicaraan umum bagi tujuan itu mematahkan bukti saya dalam Trial Within Trial yang berlatarkan DNA dari tuala Good Morning, berus gigi dan botol air mineral telah diperolehi oleh kaedah-kaedah tidak adil dan cara tidak adil dan penangkapan saya oleh itu, telah memperolehi menyalahi undang-undang.
Malah, Supt. Bukti Jude Periera dalam perbicaraan umum mengesahkan yang sudah ada ketakpatuhan dengan Rule 20 daripada Rules Lock naik, 1953 dalam yang saya, selepas penangkapan saya pada 16.7.08, belum diletakkan dalam lokap itu dari 6pm untuk 6am hari yang berikutnya. Peruntukan-peruntukan Rule 20 mandatori.
Jika ini ialah kedudukan dalam kes kami, yang ia ialah, maka, dengan jelas, saya menjadi diambil kepada HKL dalam rekahan Rule 20 cara tidak adil terpantul dan kaedah-kaedah tidak adil digaji oleh pihak polis memperoleh berlatarkan DNA dari barang-barang bertolak terdahulu dari ini. Kedudukan seterusnya dikompaun oleh bukti Supt. Jude Periera dalam perbicaraan umum yang dia tidak terus kakitangan polis bertanggungjawab dalam lokap untuk tidak menyentuh kata barang-barang walaupun kakitangan polis dalam perbicaraan umum sebelum Trial Within Trial, dengan jelas, mengatakan yang Supt. Jude Periera telah dibuat jadi.
Jadi kedudukan datang bagi ini, Supt. Jude Periera, dalam keterangan beliau atas sumpah dalam perbicaraan utama, menyokong kes pembelaan yang kaedah-kaedah tidak adil dan cara tidak adil telah digunakan oleh pihak polis memperoleh DNA berlatarkan dari barang-barang bertolak terdahulu dari ini.
Dari keputusan yang diperbuat oleh mahkamah mengecualikan barang-barang, adalah jelas ia berdasarkan cara tidak adil dan kaedah-kaedah tidak adil diambil bekerja oleh makna polis ia ialah oleh muslihat dan penipuan yang polis cuba untuk memperkenalkan bukti DNA.
Dalam mana-mana peristiwa, dari bukti DSP Taufik diberi dalam Trial Within Trial dan perbicaraan umum, alasan-alasan penangkapan tidak boleh diberi oleh dia kepada saya di Segambut sebagai ini merupakan, dengan jelas, disangkal oleh bukti S.N. Nair dan diri saya.
Soalan mencabar bukti diberi dalam perbicaraan utama oleh DSP Taufik and Supt. Jude Periera tidak timbul. Ia ialah kenyataan membuat di bawah sumpah oleh saya yang penangkapan saya ialah kaedah-kaedah menyalahi undang-undang dan tidak adil dan cara tidak adil telah digunakan untuk mendapatkan berlatarkan DNAnya dalam Trial Within Trial berdiri tidak dicabar oleh pendakwaan oleh utama bukti sah dalam pematahan kenyataan itu. Malah, Y.A. sepatutnya terlukis satu inferens buruk menentang pendakwaan kerana tidak telah membuat jadi. Kes pendakwaan terletak atas bukti DNA maka memanggil “penemuan-penemuan bendalir semen” atau “sperma” ketika mereka mendakwa. Sebenarnya, ini merupakan satu-satunya bukti forensik itu di mana asas yang dipanggil rehat bukti pendakwaan. Namun, asas ini ditegakkan pada alasan-alasan tidak kukuh walaupun ini tidak menghalang mereka bekerja dalam menyerahkan sarung tangan dengan kuasa-kuasa yang jadi mendaki satu berkempen sungguh-sungguh dan berbahaya menghina saya.
Hakikatnya yang tidak ada satu abjad bukti, DNA atau sebaliknya, bahawa pernah ditemui dalam premis-premis perbuatan dikatakan, tiada dalam bilik basuhan, bilik berkatil, permaidani atau di mana sahaja di mana bukti sedemikian sepatutnya telah didapati.
Supt. Pereira, meskipun menjadi diarah untuk menyimpan HKL merasa (ketara B1 kepada B10) dalam sebuah peti sejuk, sengaja menentang suruhan Dr Siew Sheue Fong (HKL Forensic Doctor) dan juga mengaku yang dia berada dalam rekahan serius IGSO, (dia walaupun menyatakan dia mengambil tanggungjawab diri dan penuh untuk memecahkan IGSO), apabila dia sengaja menyimpan HKL merasa dalam kabinet pejabatnya untuk lebih kurang 43 jam sebelum menyampaikan mereka bagi Chemist. Satu mesti tidak alpa yang perbuatan dikatakan sepatutnya telah berlaku dua hari sebelum kata contoh-contoh mempunyai pernah dikeluarkan. Memadankan dengan kelewatan 43 jam ini dalam penghantaran bagi Chemist, ia akan bermakna yang contoh-contoh telah pun sekurang-kurangnya 90 jam lama bila mereka telah diperiksa oleh Chemist. Nescaya, contoh-contoh akan betul-betul direndahkan. Namun bukti oleh pendakwaan mendakwa yang tiada degradasi mana-mana akibat telah berlaku.
Dalam mana-mana peristiwa , malah 43 jam kelewatan sahaja akan dengan serius bertolak ansur integriti contoh-contoh dalam soal kemerosotannya disebabkan tindakan bakteria. Juga , oleh bukan menyimpan contoh-contoh dalam kedai pameran polis (yang akan memberi mengakses hanya kepadanya), dia peninggalan perlahan-lahan undang-undang tegas sedemikian IGSO mempunyai oleh dia sangat perbuatan, menyampaikan peluang dan kemungkinan mengusik contoh-contoh sebagai akses kepada orang lain menjadikan lebih mudah. Ini telah dibiarkan.
Terdapat juga tiada sebab-sebab yang menekan atau kukuh kedua-dua dalam undang-undang dan amalan untuk Supt Jude Pereira tetas P27 (tamperproof besar beg mengandungi semua HKL merasa yang mana telah dimeterai dan diserahkan kepadanya), kononnya mengatakan mereka (B1 kepada B10). Adalah jelas bahawa perbuatan ini hanya satu alasan mudah untuk mendapatkan akses bagi sampel-sampel individu yang mana oleh diri mereka dengan jelas bukan tamperproof ketika mereka sengaja “dimeterai” dengan pita-pita biasa dan boleh ditanggalkan dengan mudah dan anjing-anjing laut kertas HKL yang boleh ditanggalkan dengan mudah.
Dr Siew Sheue Fong, sebagai terbukti di mahkamah, paling keberatan merujuk nota-nota perubatannya semasa soal balas meskipun menjadi tidak mampu ingat butiran. Semasa waktu rehat dia ditangkap secara diam-diam mengambil mencuri lihat sepintas lalu nota-notanya. Perbuatan curang ini satu doktor profesional yang sepatutnya telah menjalankan dirinya sendiri dalam pameran dan cara tersendiri secara terang-terangan diabaikan. Banyak kali Dr. Siew dan Dr Mohd Razali Ibrahim sengaja memilih untuk tidak menjawab soalan-soalan yang penting meletakkan kepada mereka oleh peguam saya. Sebaliknya bukti Dr Siew dan Dr Razali telah diterima tanpa tempahan. Dr Seah Lay Hong (Chemist) memberi keterangan sedemikian apabila dia menerima 12 HKL merasa terdapat 2 sampel yang ditandai sebagai mengambil pada tarikh-tarikh sangat berbeza, dia memberi keterangan dia tidak membuat apa-apa mencari penjelasan dari Dr Siew . Dia seterusnya memberi keterangan yang dia “memberi percaya sungguhpun berasa sangsi” kepada Dr Siew. Peguam-peguam saya menyerah dengan bersungguh-sungguh yang tindakan sedemikian dan / atau pengecualian-pengecualian berjumlah satu rekahan serius peraturan utama protokol-protokol makmal antarabangsa dan yang Jabatan Kimia Malaysia. Walaupun pendedahan terang terangan sedemikian dan kegagalan-kegagalan melarat tidak pematuhan undang-undang tegas, bukti Dr Seah diterima baik dan dalam keseluruhan apabila ia sepatutnya telah dibuang dalam keseluruhan untuk sebab-sebab ketidakcekapan dan kecuaian melampau.
Keterangan pembelaan akan menunjukkan yang tuntutan pendakwaan mempunyai bukti kehadiran “bendalir semen” atau “sperma” sama sekali tidak berasas. Malah, bukti dimaksudkan ini hanyalah rekaan tulen, satu hakikat yang mana tidak begitu luar biasa mempertimbangkan sejarah silam pendakwaan dalam perhatian ini. Jika mereka telah mempunyai mana-mana bukti forensik sedemikian, mereka akan mempunyai berkawalnya untuk hidup disayangi daripada biarkan ia dikendalikan dalam cara lecah sebegitu.
PENJUMLAHAN
Yang Arif anda telah gagal untuk memastikan satu perbicaraan yang adil sebagai menunjukkan, antara lain, oleh contoh berikut:
1. Keengganan anda semasa sepanjang perbicaraan menitahkan pendedahan bahan kritikal bagi pertahanan saya, kebanyakannya anda pemikiran cukup relevan dan yang keadilan memerlukan yang anda sepatutnya mengarahkannya didedahkan sebelum perbicaraan itu. Kegagalan anda untuk agak dan dengan betul melaksanakan budi bicara kehakimannya menitahkan pendedahan bukan sahaja bertentangan dengan undang-undang Malaysia tetapi melanggar piawaian antarabangsa menjangka sebuah negara moden yang mana bermaksud untuk berlatih kedaulatan undang-undang.
2. Keengganan anda akan bertindak sewajarnya salah satu ambil pengetahuan atau menempelkan akaun mereka yang bertanggungjawab untuk akta-akta terang-terangan bocor dan diterbitkan dalam media penghujahan pendakwaan sebelum perkara itu telah didengar di mahkamah; ketidakacuhan benar-benar anda bagi pernyataan-pernyataan serius saya tentang salah laku ini mempunyai dengan sengaja atau tidak sengaja memudahkan konspirasi menghina saya dalam mahkamah pendapat umum walaupun perbicaraan sedang dalam pembinaan.
3. Kegagalan anda menitahkan yang menyaksikan kritikal bagi pertahanan saya menghadiri perbicaraan memberi keterangan, dalam keadaan di mana penglibatan mereka nyata bahan bagi isu-isu itu di perbicaraan dan merekod di bawah sumpah dalam testimoni pengadu dan diakui oleh kenyataan-kenyataan yang diperbuat oleh saksi-saksi ini bagi media. Saksi-saksi ini berkaitan tentang keadaan-keadaan di mana pengadu datang untuk membuat dia awal aduan-aduan terhadap saya. Tiada apa-apa boleh jadi lebih bahan bagi kredit pengadu.
4. Penemuan anda pengadu menjadi “satu saksi sebenar” di hasaya bagi satu pembebasan tanpa syarat dengan caj-caj bersaing dengan saya menjadi kewajipan tanah. Walaupun ini, anda bukan sahaja gagal untuk mengarahkan membebaskan saya tetapi telah berpendirian enggan untuk recuse diri anda dari seterusnya menjadi pengerusi di perbicaraan.
5. Anda tiba di kesimpulan yang pengadu ialah seorang saksi kebenaran tanpa perbicaraan pertama bukti pertahanan akan menjadi kesinambungan perbicaraan ini satu latihan dalam sia-sia. Apa penggunaan akan sana jadi untuk saya mengemukakan bukti menunjukkan yang pengadu ialah malah seorang pembohong jika anda telah pun mendapati “dia menjadi satu saksi sebenar” dan itu buktinya boleh dipercayai dan konklusif dan oleh kebaikan yang tidak dapat disangkal? Ia tidak dapat dipertahankan dan undang-undang tidak membenarkan anda lakukan apa anda telah buat.
6. Penemuan anda yang pengadu telah menyokong dirinya sendiri dengan mengadu bagi doktor perubatan serangan seksual ialah satu ralat menonjol undang-undang selain ia berada dalam pengabaian kasar satu penemuan fakta, bahawa ialah, bahawa penemuan klinikal telah membayangkan tiada bukti penembusan. Tambahan pula, kegagalan anda mempersoalkan mengapa pendakwaan mempunyai untuk tiada alasan jelas enggan untuk panggil masuk pegawai perubatan pertama yang telah memeriksa pengadu memberi keterangan. Adakah ia tidak menyeberang minda anda yang kegagalan ini telah dibangkitkan oleh keperluan menindas bukti yang mungkin tidak menguntungkan bagi pendakwaan?
7. Anda menerima tanpa keraguan bukti forensik sebagai menyokong akaun pengadu dalam keadaan di mana sana adalah jelas kebimbangan tentang bagaimana contoh-contoh itu telah diperolehi, dilabelkan, disimpan dan dianalisis. mpir kes pendakwaan dengan jelas berjumlah prejudgment menunjukkan dalam proses itu satu kecenderungan jelas terhadap saya. Akibatnya, anda telah menghalang saya saya kanan yang berdasarkan perlembagaan terjamin bagi satu perbicaraan adil kesan di mana ialah untuk memberi hak
KESIMPULAN
Keseluruhan proses ini hanyalah satu konspirasi oleh Perdana Menteri Dato’ Seri Najib Razak menghantar saya ke dalam kelalaian politik oleh cuba sekali lagi untuk meletakkan saya dalam penjara. Saya lantarannya mengisytiharkan yang saya tidak mempunyai kepercayaan apa-apa yang keadilan akan diamalkan di dalam prosiding ini walaupun usaha-usaha yang berani yang diperbuat oleh pasukan pembela saya. Ketika saya telah berkata di permulaan , ini bukan satu perbicaraan jenayah. Ia satu kepura-puraan dipentaskan oleh kuasa-kuasa yang jadi meletakkan saya keluar dari tindakan supaya mereka kekal dalam kuasa.
Dalam 1998, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad melakukan itu sahaja dan oleh penggunaan Penuh Tipu Muslihat semua organ-organnya kuasa State, berjaya dalam mendapatkan saya menuduh untuk lima belas tahun bagi kesalahan yang saya tidak pernah komited. Sedemikian ialah kezaliman dan ketidakadilan diapa-apakan saya kemudian. Dan demikian merupakan kezaliman dan ketidakadilan disebabkan hari ini.
Najib Razak melakukan perkara sama sebagai penasihatnya melakukan, yang ialah untuk mengambil semua cara dalam beliau kuasa melalui media, polis, Peguam Negara dan badan kehakiman supaya memusnahkan kursus keadilan dan ambil saya daripada persamaan politik.
Sabitan tanpa belas kasihan ini akan menghantar saya kembali ke penjara menjadi lagi penting disebabkan oleh kejayaan-kejayaan utama diperoleh oleh pembangkang Pakatan Rakyat dalam Mac pilihanraya 2008. Kebimbangan paling buruk mereka telah disahkan apabila ia menjadi jelas yang sebaik sahaja pembatalan sah saya telah berakhir saya akan bertanding untuk satu kerusi parlimen dan jika saya memenangi, akan dipilih pemimpin pembangkang. Ia bagaimanapun tiada kebetulan yang konspirasi baru ini timbul tiga bulan selepas Mac 2008 kemenangan dan tanggungjawab rasmi terhadap saya telah dibuat hanya sebulan sebelum saya berlumba-lumba kerusi parlimen Permatang Pauh.
Turutan acara yang memberitahu sebelum tanggungjawab rasmi kelihatan seolah-olah dijiplak plot 1998 tolak, dalam episod terbaru ini, urusan mata lebam dan mangsa-mangsa dimaksudkan dibawa ke dalam mahkamah sebagai rakan-rakan dalam jenayah. Dalam episod kedua ini, pengkomplot telah memulas plot membuat pengadu memegang peranan satu mangsa tidak berdaya, setelah menyedari yang 1998 kaedah mengambil bekerja pengakuan seperti Stalin dan penggambaran mangsa-mangsa yang didakwa sebagai sedih dan melencong seksual menyesal baru sahaja terlalu banyak untuk orang awam percaya.
Maka, semasa keseluruhan peperiksaan itu pengadu, pendakwaan meninggalkan tiada batu tidak berpusing dalam percubaan mereka pada lukisan gambar satu pemuda yang tidak berdaya, naif dan tidak bersalah yang ialah seorang saksi kebenaran dan yang testimoni patut dipercayai tanpa mengira sebarang bukti bagi bertentangan. Hakikatnya yang dalam keseluruhan skim barang-barang itu, pengadu, yang hanya sebuah universiti tercicir bekerja separuh masa membantu ketua kakitangan saya, adalah pada dasarnya satu gadaian digaji oleh pengkomplot rendang mencapai hujung licik mereka dalam komplot itu. Tetapi ia ialah keputusan mahkamah selepas hampir kes pendakwaan yang dia memang merupakan satu saksi sebenar.
Persediaan memerlukan dalam konspirasi ini adalah paling terperinci dan pergi berterusan kepada Perdana Menteri dirinya sendiri dan isteri beliau Rosmah Mansor kedua-dua yang mana oleh pengadu sendiri kemasukan telah berjumpa dia dalam kediaman mereka di mana dia yang dikatakan mengadu mengalami serangan seks. Kenyataan awal oleh Najib yang dia telah dipertemukan dengan pengadu hanya membincangkan tentang satu biasiswa ialah satu pembohongan terang-terangan tetapi kemudiannya ditarik balik kemudian selepas pelbagai mendedahkan telah dibuat melalui media sosial dan blog internet. Ia adalah jelas yang bukan Najib mahupun Rosmah tidak akan mahu dilihat menjadi bahagian konspirasi menjadi diri mereka terlibat dalam satu siri skandal-skandal lain butiran di mana telah timbul di Parlimen yang mana sehingga kini tidak pernah dengan pasti membuktikan. Tetapi pancang-pancang dalam konspirasi ini ialah begitu tinggi yang tiada apa-apa boleh jadi ditinggal kepada peluang tulen untuk sesungguhnya prospek UMNO menerajui Barisan Nasional hilang kuasa kepada Pakatan Rakyat menjadi lebih nyata oleh hari. Pengkritik utama konspirasi ialah untuk mereka tuduhan liwat ini supaya mengenakan kerosakan maksimum bagi perwatakan saya dalam kempen peningkatan mendadak bagi pilihan raya kecil. Ke arah akhir ini, satu serangan hebat media kuat dan virulen melancarkan serentak dengan pemeringkatan perhimpunan-perhimpunan dan ceramahs di mana fokus perbahasan tidak pada mana-mana isu-isu politik yang sosial, ekonomi atau teratur tetapi semata-mata pada orang saya dan moraliti saya. Pengkomplot untuk sebab-sebab mengetahui hanya bagi diri mereka menjadi tandas kepada maklumat yang mana akan digunakan kemudiannya oleh pendakwaan dan pergi bandar dalam satu pesta liar pencemaran nama baik mengira tidak syak memastikan satu kekalahan memalukan untuk saya dalam pilihan raya itu. Tetapi Allah ialah Great dan daripada menghilangkan, saya memenangi Permatang Pauh kerusi dengan satu majoriti besar 15,000 undi.
Tetapi semangat menyerah saya untuk kelalaian politik terus tidak berkurang. Najib kelihatan seperti fikir itu dengan merosakkan masa depan politik saya, ia juga akan memusnahkan prospek Pakatan Rakyat akan datang untuk mendayai.
Maka, tiada apa-apa dilepaskan untuk memastikan yang saya akan disabitkan supaya UMNO menerajui kerajaan Barisan terus untuk memerintah. Mempunyai perhatian bagi semua di atas, saya sekarang ingin melafazkan yang perbicaraan ini ialah untuk semua tujuan dan tujuan-tujuan satu pembicaraan tunjukan. Saya mengatakan ini untuk tidak olok-olok Yang Arif anda mahupun dengan kemarahan terhadap sesiapa secara peribadi tetapi saya duduk di hadapan anda di dalam kandang hanya bercakap apa saya tahu dan apa saya percaya dengan sabitan menjadi perkara sebenar. Dan sabitan ini ditanggung dengan mempunyai berada dalam perkhidmatan awam untuk lebih daripada empat puluh tahun satu perempat di mana telah dibelanjakan dalam dinding-dinding pemenjaraan di Kamunting dan di Sungai Buloh. Fakta tetap yang saya ialah dikutuk kepada penjara bukan disebabkan oleh sebarang jenayah yang saya telah melakukan kecuali kepercayaan politik dan tuduhan-tuduhan saya dan lebih bermakna lagi kerana kembali dalam 1998 saya telah mengemukakan satu ancaman masa kini dan jelas bagi lebih daripada dua dekad pemerintahan yang autokratik Mahathir.
Saya mengatakannya kerana ketika saya telah dinyatakan lebih awal, integriti mahkamah telah sepenuhnya dikompromikan dan menanggung semua gejala-gejala klasik satu pembicaraan tunjukan di mana skrip telah dengan berkesan ditulis dan hasil kesimpulan yang sudah pasti. Saya mengatakannya kerana sebagai satu hakim yang mengetuai anda telah ditunjukkan melebihi bayang satu keraguan anda lengkap kekurangan kesaksamaan. Saya mengatakannya kerana anda telah dengan konsisten enggan untuk recuse diri anda walaupun berhadapan dengan keterangan semakin meningkat kecenderungan anda terhadap saya. Saya mengatakannya juga kerana anda telah dengan tekun berpusing satu membutakan mata bagi pencabulan-pencabulan nyata protokol dan prosedur dilakukan oleh pendakwaan manakala di sama baki kedap bagi pernyataan-pernyataan serius saya tentang ketaksekataan terang terangan ini yang akan tanpa lebih banyak berwaspada mana-mana hakim adil sebagai bagi niat jahat dan niat jahat pendakwaan.
Dalam perkara itu tugas seorang hakim, Qur’an Holy perintah-perintah:
“Dan apabila anda mengadili antara manusia
Kemudian anda mengadili sepatutnya”
Reply
Salam dan selamat sejahtera DSAI,
Simpati atas apa yang berlaku ke atas DSAI.Saya sebagai rakyat Malaysia meneliti dari awal kes DSAI ini.
Sebegitu panjang lebar DSAI menjawab segala tuduh-tuduhan yang dilemparkan kepada DSAI yang disifatkan tidak bertamadun dan tidak berperikemanusian.
Tapi kesimpulannya dan keseluruhannya apa yang saya nampak….DSAI seperti memberi jawapan B kepada soalan A??
Rakyat sekarang memberi fokus kepada ketidakbenaran bahawa DSAI di fitnah oleh Saiful.Bukan kes DSAI di fitnah oleh politik BN untuk DSAI kekal sebagai ketua pembangkang dan future PM suatu hari nanti.
Reply
DSAI, mulanya saya baca yang BM, tak faham, lepastu baca yang ori [BI)faham dan sangatlah bersemangatnya untuk membantu DSAI dengan lebih proaktif. Kadang2 terlintas dalam hatini “kenapa tiada sesiapa organisekan coup de ……”, kerana kalau nak harap keadilan di malaysia ni taraklah.Yang BM tu tolong betulkan, banyak sangat direct translation yang ngubah maksud sebenarnya malahan tak faham langsung, hancurssss….
Reply