Keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan petang tadi amat dikesalkan walaupun tidak memeranjatkan.

Kita mungkin saja merujuk kepada persoalan teknikal undang-undang, tetapi sungguh aneh untuk para hakim mengenepikan isu dakwaan ke atas Peguam Negara Abdul Gani Patail atas keterlanjuran, penipuan dan merekacipta keterangan.

Hakim memilih mempertahankan Peguam Negara yang punyai kuasa mutlak dalam isu pendakwaan.

Malah hakim mempersoal jaminan Perdana Menteri (ketika itu Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) dengan singgungan nakal bahawa Perdana Menteri tidak punyai kuasa untuk mempengaruhi Peguam Negara, haha!

Dan, sekonyong-konyong hakim memberi jaminan bahawa perbicaraan di Mahkamah Tinggi nanti adalah adil dan saksama.

Wah, kejahilan terhadap lapuran ICJ; kenyataan bekas Ketua Hakim, Tun Suffian; lapuran Suruhanjaya Diraja yang menyiasat skandal video VK Lingam turut membingungkan!

ANWAR IBRAHIM

(video ehsan Malaysiakinitv)

Kenyataan Akhbar

Pakatan Rakyat

2 Julai 2009

Senarai Jawatankuasa Ahli Parlimen Pakatan Rakyat Mengikut Kementerian

Pada hari ini kami ingin mengumumkan Senarai Jawatankuasa Ahli Parlimen Pakatan Rakyat mengikut Kementerian.

Matlamat Jawatankuasa ini adalah untuk menyediakan Ahli-ahli Parlimen Pakatan Rakyat bagi sesi perbahasan di Parlimen termasuk perbahasan Rang Undang-undang dan sesi soal jawab. Ini adalah bagi meningkatkan kualiti perbahasan dengan bersandarkan rujukan secara khusus berdasarkan kementerian masing-masing.

Jawatankuasa ini dibentuk mengikut 25 Kementerian dalam kerajaan Barisan Nasional dan dipengerusikan secara bersama oleh seorang wakil dari setiap parti dalam Pakatan Rakyat. Keanggotaan Jawatankuasa ini melibatkan beberapa Ahli Parlimen lain dan juga boleh melibatkan pakar dari luar dalam bidang masing-masing bagi membantu Ahli Parlimen Pakatan Rakyat.

YB Mohamed Azmin Ali

Ketua Whip

Ahli Parlimen PKR

YB Tan Seng Giaw

Ketua Whip Ahli Parlimen DAP

YB Salahuddin Ayub
Naib Presiden PAS

Pejabat Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim

KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) — Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, who faces trial this month on sodomy charges, said his Pakatan Rakyat alliance would survive even if he is convicted and jailed.

Anwar has rejected the allegations levelled by a 23-year-old former aide as a conspiracy to derail his plan to topple the government.

He was found guilty of separate sodomy and corruption charges a decade ago in a case widely seen as politically motivated. In 2004 the sodomy conviction was overturned, allowing Anwar to go free after six years in jail.

“There is no question of the Pakatan Rakyat continuing, surviving. It will continue to defend the rights of the people and challenge the government, gaining strength from any conviction made against me,” Anwar told AFP.

“In fact I think a conviction against me will enrage a lot of people,” he said after a political rally late Tuesday.

“I am ready for all eventualities and prepared to face attacks — expect the best and prepare for the worst.”

Anwar addressed a crowd of more than 2,000 supporters in a stadium outside the capital in a three-hour rally organised by his opposition alliance to show their solidarity for him.

Anwar’s Keadilan party has joined forces with the conservative Islamic party PAS and the Chinese-based Democratic Action Party in an alliance which gained unprecedented ground against the ruling coalition in national polls a year ago.

After seizing control of a third of seats in parliament, it is now vowing to unseat the Barisan Nasional coalition — which has ruled Malaysia for half a century — in the next general elections.

However, Anwar’s political success story has faced a formidable challenge with fresh sodomy allegations that could see him jailed for 20 years.

The sex act, even between consenting adults, is illegal in predominantly Muslim Malaysia. Anwar’s trial will begin on July 8 and he has already said he fears he will not get fair treatment.

Anwar served as deputy prime minister for the Barisan Nasional until he was sacked in 1998 and jailed for sodomy and corruption.

12.00 – SUKANEKA DAN KENDURI KESYUKURAN – TANAH LIAT

2.00 PTG – PERASMIAN BENGKEL KECERMELANGAN AKADEMIK UNTUK PELAJAR SPM – YAYASAN AMAN - PENANTI

3.00 PTG – MAJLIS KENDURI KESYUKURAN – SURAU MENGKUANG TITI

5.00 PTG – PERJUMPAAN DENGAN PIMPINAN PERHUBONGAN NEGERI KEDAH – YAYASAN AMAN

Bandar Baru, Kulim.

7.15 – 8.30 MLM – SOLAT DAN KULIAH MAGHRIB – MASJID HIJAU KG. RELAU SUNGAI BAKAR - BANDAR BARU KULIM

9.00 – 12.00 MLM – CERAMAH PERDANA – SAMAK NEW VILLAGE – BANDAR BARU KULIM

PENCERAMAH :

1. YB DATO’ SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM

2. YB AHMAD KASSIM

3. YB TAN CHU KANG

4. YBhg USTAZ HAJI HASSAN ABDUL RAZAK

By Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan

The following is an excerpt of a public lecture by Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan titled Democracy, Law and Human Rights in an Era of Globalisation that was delivered on 23 June 2009 to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Chevening Scholarship Programme.

THE Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim prosecution is seen by many as the political persecution of the leader of the opposition. The question is, can we, as a nation, go through a second Anwar prosecution?

Lawyer Tommy Thomas had this to say in a 28 July 2008 article titled A Second Prosecution of Anwar Ibrahim — Is it in the national interest?: “The starting point is the previous prosecution of Anwar for sodomy in 1998[,] which imposed incredible strains on our legal system, and made Malaysia the laughing stock in the legal world.

“It would be sufficient to remind ourselves of the conduct of the prosecution in the 1998 case, the unfair publicity given by the mass media, the denial of bail, the ‘irrelevant’ rulings by the trial judge, the conduct of the trial itself, the amendment of the charges, the shameful parading of the mattress, the expungement of ‘inconvenient’ evidence, the finding of guilty, the lengthy sentence, the appeal to the Court of Appeal, and finally the appeal to the Federal Court.”

I personally recall being utterly horrified and disgusted by the charges against Anwar the first time round. The initial charges carried wording I cannot repeat in good company. I also remember the terrible injustice done to Sukma Darmawan. And then to Dr Munawar Ahmad Anees, who to this day has not been vindicated by our courts although they have had the opportunity to do so. We must not forget these and other unfortunate people who all became innocent victims in this political war against Anwar.

The whole prosecution was a disgrace. I remember someone saying then that the trial robbed this country’s citizens, in particular our children, of their innocence, as we had a daily fare of sodomy, semen-stained mattresses and the like.

Thomas argues, and I agree, that since those disgraceful events, the judiciary has taken steps to repair itself. He argues that a second prosecution would (I’d say could because, of course, the court could throw out the case) undo all the repair the judiciary has carried out to improve its image.

And it is no coincidence that Anwar is the opposition leader who has brought sweeping changes to the political landscape.

Tommy ThomasThomas argues: “If Anwar were not a potential prime minister, and only an ordinary citizen, he would not face this prosecution. It is as simple, plain and obvious as that.”

The prosecution, Thomas argues, is economic and political suicide. He adds that the people of Malaysia are deeply divided on this issue, and that Malaysia’s international image will, no doubt, suffer.

He then concludes with these words: “History is replete with examples of leaders who refused to learn from past mistakes, and were doomed to repeat them. It would be a tragedy of ancient Greek proportions if our leaders do not learn the lessons from 1998.

“It is abundantly clear that all the factors point in one direction: it is not in the public interest to subject the nation and its citizens to the trauma of a second trial…”

Ultimately, the powers-that-be must appreciate the consequences of this prosecution. If they win, they lose; if they lose, they lose. Actually, the nation loses. If you were a betting person, what would you do with those odds?

One thing must be made clear, it is my opinion that what we are doing to Anwar Ibrahim is starkly similar to what is happening to Aung San Suu Kyi. I ask, show me the difference between the two. I ask, how can we condemn the latter and do the former?

I call on the government to immediately review the Anwar prosecution in the public interest and because it is the right thing to do. If the government takes this step, it will certainly regain some credibility.

The AG’s role

It is important in our justice system to appreciate the duties and responsibilities of the Attorney General, particularly in criminal prosecutions.

The Attorney General cannot act arbitrarily. In a judgment relating to the Attorney General’s discretion over prosecutions, the Federal Court held that:

“The public of whose interest he [or she] is the guardian has a right to expect him [or her] to act honestly, without fear of powerful national and local figures or of the consequences to him [or her] personally or politically, and without favouring his [or her] relatives and friends and supporters, his [or her] principal concern being to maintain the rule of law so that there will be no anarchy and to maintain standards in public life and the private sector.”

Our institutions must work to regain their credibility. I started my speech with a quote from Aung San Suu Kyi that fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it. I hope this is not what we are seeing today in Malaysia.

Rule of law

You would have appreciated by now that democracy, rule of law and human rights are all interlinked. The essential distinction between rule of law and rule by law must be noted.

Many dictatorships or military regimes can quite honestly say that everything that they do is in accordance with laws they have passed. Does our Internal Security Act, for example, accord with the rule of law? No — that is rule by law.

Laws passed by Parliament must accord with the rule of law. They must encompass basic fundamental liberties and values. These laws must be acceptable to a large number of people. They must be fair.

In Malaysia, even after 50 years of Merdeka, there are still in existence four declarations of emergency! We still have the archaic Sedition Act, Official Secrets Act, and Printing Presses and Publications Act. It is time for us to review all these pieces of legislation.

Within our borders

So, if there are human rights abuses outside our borders, can we in today’s world fail to act? The answer is no. We must reach across our borders on issues of human rights.

But more important is what we do within our borders. Do we have the right to condemn apartheid, as we did, when we allow racist rhetoric to abound in our country? What about the right to condemn Aung San Suu Kyi’s suffering while we treat Anwar Ibrahim the way we do? Can we criticise the kidnapping and disappearance of people overseas when it happens in our country?

We must have the moral authority to criticise others by ensuring we do not behave in the same way.

————-

Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan is former Bar Council chairperson and a recipient of the US Secretary of State’s 2009 Award for International Women of Courage.

Penyiasatan dan pendakwaan ke atas Anwar Ibrahim telah menimbulkan pelbagai persepsi dan spekulasi. Meskipun Anwar Ibrahim belum di dakwa secara rasmi di mahkamah, terdapat pelbagai kepincangan dalam siasatan dan dalam perjalanan kes ini. Berikut ialah 10 perkara misteri dan luar biasa yang timbul dalam kes Anwar.

.

1. Laporan Pengadu enggan diserahkan

Ini merupakan satu perkara yang luar biasa. Lazimnya, apabila seseorang yang dituduh dengan sesuatu kesalahan meminta laporan polis yang dibuat oleh pengadu, ianya akan dibekalkan dalam masa seminggu ke dua minggu oleh pihak polis. Tanpa laporan pengadu, orang yang tertuduh sukar membela diri kerana apa yang didakwa pun tentulah tidak jelas. Pengalaman penulis memohon laporan polis bagi membela anak guam membuatkan penulis hairan kerana penulis pernah beberapa kali mendapat laporan pengadu pada pagi yang sama penulis memohon. Kenyataan Hamid Albar bahawa laporan enggan diberi kerana pendakwaan belum dimulakan secara rasmi tidak masuk akal kerana masyarakat maklum Anwar telah ditahan oleh polis, keterangannya telah diambil dan beliau perlu membela diri dan reputasinya. Ini meyakinkan masyarakat bahawa laporan polis belum ada dan perbincangan sedang dibuat berhubung inti laporan tersebut untuk mendapatkan tarikh dakwaan yang paling sesuai.

2. Anwar ditangkap sebelum tempoh

Adalah sesuatu yang cukup memalukan apabila pihak polis memungkiri janji dan menangkap Anwar sebelum tempoh yang diberikan tamat. Tempoh diberi sehingga pukul 2 petang tetapi Anwar ditangkap sekitar pukul 1 petang. Mungkin polis terbawa-bawa sikap Pak Lah yang kerap membuat kenyataan palsu.

3. Anwar disabitkan bersalah sebelum dibicarakan

Apabila Pak lah diminta mengulas berhubung kes Anwar, Pak Lah dengan segera berkata bahawa memanglah penjenayah akan menafikan kesalahannya. Belum pun perbicaraan bermula, Anwar sudah disabitkan sebagai pesalah oleh Pak Lah. Pada masa yang sama, apabila Pak Lah diminta mengulas berhubung dakwaan ke atas najib dan Rosmah, Pak Lah dengan segera menyatakan bahawa Pak Lah berkeyakinan penuh bahawa Najib dan Rosmah tidak bersalah. Jika Mahathir dikaitkan dengan konspirasi perlantikan hakim, pak Lah selangkah ke hadapan dengan melantik dirinya sebagai hakim tidak rasmi.

4. DNA baru Anwar diminta oleh Pak Lah dan Khairi.

DNA Anwar sudah lama dimiliki oleh pihak polis berikutan siasatan kes lamanya. Paten DNA tidak akan berubah. Justeru DNA baru tidak diperlukan melainkan jika hendak digunakan sebagai bukti palsu yang hendak dicalit dibadan pengadu. Tindakan Khairi dan Pak Lah yang berulangkali menuntut Anwar memberi DNA barunya menimbulkan tanda tanya berhubung tujuan mereka. Apabila Anwar mendedahkan perkara ini di dalam muka depan Suara Keadilan, Pak LAh dan Khairi diam membisu. Kalau anak dara yang diam, ini bermakna anak dara tersebut setuju dengan pinangan. Justeru, diamnya Pak LAh dan Khairi seakan mengiyakan persepsi masyarakat bahawa inilah tujuannya.

5. Laporan Pusrawi

Perlu diakui bahawa laporan Pusrawi sebelum ini bukanlah laporan rasmi bagi kes Anwar. Meskipun begitu, fakta bahawa seorang doktor, meskipun bukan doktor pakar kes liwat, telah melihat lubang punggung Saiful dan tiada sebarang kesan koyakan atau apa-apa tanda diliwat adalah relevan. Meminjam istilah yang selalu digunakan di dalam kes-kes berkaitan Puspakom, pemeriksaan yang dibuat adalah pemeriksaan mata kasar. Meskipun begitu, ianya tetap relevan dan keterangan sudah cukup untuk menimbulkan keraguan munasabah. Pejabat Peguam Negara selama ini tidak membuat pendakwaan melainkan yakin dengan tahap 90% bahawa tertuduh memang bersalah dan bukti-bukti yang ada benar-benar kuat.

6. Bukti alibi Anwar memadai

Kepincangan dalam kes ini semakin menjadi-jadi apabila pihak polis berkeras meminta DNA baru Anwar sedangkan bukti alibi Anwar tidak dikaji. Sepatutnya, polis menyerahkan laporan Saiful kepada Anwar supaya Anwar boleh membela diri dengan menjelaskan di mana Anwar berada pada tarikh yang didakwa Saiful berlaku liwat tersebut. Seterusnya, alibi Anwar perlu disiasat. Sebagai contoh, Antihusam (blogger UMNO) mendakwa punggungnya telah saya liwat pada pukul 11 malam , 20 Julai 2008 di Hotel Sunway. Saya akan memaklumkan bukti alibi saya pada waktu itu. Contohnya, saya menyatakan bahawa pada waktu tersebut, saya menghadiri ceramah Ustaz Hadi di markas Pas. Terdapat lebih 20 kawan saya yang boleh membuktikan kehadiran saya. Justeru, mustahil saya meliwat Antihusam. Apabila pihak polis selesai menyoal alibi-alibi saya dan berpuas hati bahawa saya mustahil meliwat Antihusam, siasatan patut ditamatkan. Begitulah juga dalam kes Anwar. Tindakan pihak polis yang beria-ia mahukan DNA baru Anwar kelihatan senada dengan Pak Lah dan Khairi.

7. Pendakwaan oleh Pejabat Peguam Negara

UMNO ke sana ke sini membuat kenyataan bahawa kes Anwar tidak akan diuruskan oleh Pejabat Peguam Negara kerana Peguam Negara sendiri sedang disiasat berhubung dakwaan rasuah dan penyelewengan kuasa yang dibuat oleh Anwar. Pendakwaan, jika jadi, akan dibuat oleh Peguam Cara Negara. Masyarakat sedia maklum bahawa pendakwaan masih akan diteruskan oleh Pejabat Peguam Negara sekalipun diketuai oleh Peguam Cara Negara. Adalah pelik bin ajaib untuk mendakwa Pejabat Peguam Negara tidak akan dipengaruhi oleh Peguam Negara. Nama pun Pejabat Peguam Negara.

8. Laporan HKL

Timbul isu terbaru bahawa laporan rasmi HKL turut bocor dan laporan tersebut menyatakan bahawa Saiful memang tiada tanda-tanda diliwat dan mustahil Saiful diliwat. Ini menunjukkan Saiful tidak ikhlas membantu BN. Sekiranya Saiful komited membantu BN, Saiful sepatutnya pergi ke Lorong Haji Taib dan menyuruh pondan-pondan di situ meliwatnya beberapa kali agar kesan liwat ketara. Ini menunjukkan perancangan lemah BN dan ketidak ikhlasan Saiful dalam membantu BN.

9. Isu motif dan tujuan

Kes ini menimbulkan keraguan yang cukup banyak apabila kepimpinan UMNO seperti Najib mengakui telah berjumpa dengan Saiful sebelum saiful membuat laporan polis. Adalah menjadi pengetahuan umum bahawa Anwar adalah musuh politik UMNO. Justeru, polis sepatutnya menyiasat kebarangkalian berlakunya konspirasi dikalangan UMNO untuk menganiayai Anwar seperti yang pernah dibuat sebelum ini. Sebelum ini, mahkamah telahpun membebaskan Anwar dari tuduhan liway yang dijaja oleh UMNO berdasarkan sekeping surat layang.

10. Terlampau banyak percanggahan fakta kes oleh BN

Pada mulanya, Najib mendakwa tidak pernah berjumpa Saiful. Kemudian, Najib mendakwa pula bahawa najib pernah berjumpa Saiful 2 bulan dulu di pejabat untuk membincangkan biasiswa. Kemudian, Najib berkata pula bahawa Najib telah berjumpa Saiful 2 hari sebelum laporan polis dibuat untuk membincangkan biasiswa. Tiba-tiba, Najib mendakwa pula Najib telah memegang tangan Saiful yang kesejukan 2 hari sebelum laporan polis dibuat di rumah Najib sendiri apabila Saiful yang kononnya ketakutan datang mengadu diliwat.

Saiful pula mulanya mendakwa diliwat pada 26 haribulan di sebuah kondo di Malaysia. Apabila Anwar kelihatan mempunyai bukti alibi yang kukuh, saiful menjadi terdesak. Kemudian, Saiful menyatakan pula bahawa dia telah 3 kali menemani rombongan Anwar ke luar negara dengan memberi “hint” bahawa dia kononnya telah diliwat-liwat di luar negara beberapa kali. Ini menimbulkan pelbagai tanda Tanya. Mengapa seorang lelaki yang kelihatan tinggi dan sihat seperti Saiful membiarkan dirinya diliwat-liwat beberapa kali dan terus menemani Anwar ke mana saja. Sebagai contoh, jika saya diliwat oleh sesiapa, saya akan trauma dan akan segera menjauhkan diri dari orang tersebut.

Selain itu, Saiful juga sentiasa kelihatan ceria. Demi Allah, selama saya bekerja sebagai peguam, belum pernah saya menemui mangsa rogol atau mangsa liwat yang begitu ceria. Mangsa kes serangan seksual akan trauma, malu dengan masyarakat, rasa rendah diri dan biasanya mengalami kemurungan.

Saiful juga seorang lelaki. Tidak semudah itu hendak menembusi lubang punggung seorang lelaki. Asalkan saiful mengeraskan punggungnya, mustahil Anwar dapat meliwatnya. Sekiranya Saiful benar-benar hendak diliwat, dua atau tiga orang lelaki gagah diperlukan untuk memegang Saiful dan lubang punggung saiful perlu disapu minyak terlebih dahulu sebelum diliwat. Sekiranya ini yang berlaku, mustahil Saiful akan terus mengikut Anwar ke sana sini sehinggalah menemani rombongan Anwar ke luar negara sebanyak 3 kali.

Sebagai kesimpulan, kes Anwar Ibrahim ini tidak layak dibawa ke mahkamah untuk pendakwaan. Sekiranya saya ialah hakim bagi kes tersebut, saya akan melempar fail pendakwaan ke lantai kerana terlalu banyak kepincangan.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

PEJABAT DATUK SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM

PUTRAJAYA, June 30 – The Court of Appeal here today overruled the public prosecutor’s preliminary objections against Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s appeal to move his Sodomy II trial back to the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court.

The panel of three judges said they would continue to hear the merits of Anwar’s appeal tomorrow morning.

Justice Datuk Abdull Hamid Embong, who headed the bench today, told both sides to prepare their arguments to directly address the heart of the dispute by tomorrow, which focuses on whether the controversial certificate of transfer, signed by the Attorney General (AG) Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail is valid or not.

The court wants answers on three key points: the concept of “legitimate expectation” (which is basically the assurance then Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi gave Anwar’s wife and daughter that Abdul Gani will not be in any way involved in Anwar’s second sodomy case); the doctrine of necessity; and the question of perceived bias.

Anwar has consistently maintained that Abdul Gani, whom he accuses of having a hand in falsifying his records in the first sodomy case in 1998, is biased.

The Court of Appeal also granted a stay of proceedings in the KL High Court tomorrow.

The High Court was earlier scheduled to hear Anwar’s application against the public prosecutor for allegedly withholding important evidence connected to his trial.