August 23, 2011
by Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim, MP as good as Leader of a Opposition*
My name is Anwar garbage garbage garbage garbage bin Ibrahim. we am a personality of a Opposition in Parliament. In a 1990s, we was a Finance Minister as good as Deputy Prime Minister until Sep 1998 when afterwards Prime Minister Dato Seri Dr Mahathir garbage garbage garbage garbage bin Mohamad sacked me after we had refused to resign. He had told me to renounce or face apocalyptic consequences together with rapist assign for purported passionate as good as crime offences. we refused as good as all ruin broke loose.
My unmannerly as good as grossly astray exclusion concurrently orchestrated with a conference by media underneath Mahathirs finish control triggered mass as good as drawn out demonstrations throughout a nation as good as launched a movement for change as good as reform good good well known in a story as a Reformasi era.
After a series of uncover trials during which each process in a book upon justification as good as rapist procession was overlooked with impunity during a hands of a assign as good as a courts, we was convicted as good as sentenced to a sum of fifteen years.
The assign opposite me
First as good as foremost, we definitely repudiate a assign opposite me. we instruct to state in no uncertain conditions which we have never had any passionate family with a complainant Mohamed Sa! iful. Hi s allegation is a viewable as good as infamous lie as good as will be valid to be so.
This is a vile as good as despicable try during impression assassination. In this regard, let me reiterat! e which t hey can do all they instruct to assassinate my impression as good as deface my reputation as good as bluster me with an additional twenty years of imprisonment though mark my words, they wont be able to cow me in to submission. On a contrary, it usually serves to fortify my conviction which a law will eventually prevail.
Come what come may, we shall never surrender. With apologies to Jean Racine in Phaedra:
You know how good your restraint favours my temperament as good as strengthens me to guard a honour of my reputation.
Yes indeed, we will guard it with my hold up if we have to. And if we competence bring a summary closer to home, let me quote a difference of Nelson Mandela in his speech finished from a wharf in a famous Rivonia uncover conference of 1963 underneath a Apartheid regime:
I have fought opposite white domination, as good as we have fought opposite black domination. we have cherished a ideal of a democratic as good as giveaway multitude in which all persons live together in peace as good as with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which we hope to live for as good as to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which we am rebuilt to die.
Back in 1998, blindfolded as good as handcuffed, we was beaten senseless by a Inspector General of Police as good as left to die in a tighten up during a Federal Police headquarters. However, it was by a beauty of God which a couple of of a rank as good as file of a Police took pity upon me as good as nursed me to redeem from a nearby fatal blows.
There was afterwards a cover up by Gani Patail (now a Attorney-General) as good as Musa Hassan (the IGP 
at a time which we was charged in this brand new episode) with a full hold as good as connivance of Dato Yusuf, a stream arch prosecutor in this trial.
All these personalities w! ere couple ed in a single approach or a alternative with a 1998 uncover conference as good as some-more insidiously with a suppression of justification in apply oneself of a black eye liaison as good as attempts to debase a march of justice. These have been a same personalities who have been right away actively endangered in a stream assign opposite me. Res ipsa loquitur, as they say, though in this courtesy Im not talking about loosening though rather proof of criminality in this iniquitous tract betraying in law a deep damnation of a conspiracy.
The resources have been constrained which we elect to have a make a difference from a dock. And in this make a difference we shall try my utmost to place a law forward of a web of lies as good as deception which has been spun thus far. To quote Shakespeare:
And let us once again asperse your ears,
That have been so fortified opposite a story
Which has set me from a opening of a conference to have been deprived of a level personification margin as good as subjected to lack of harmony of arms vis-a-vis a prosecution.
The prosecutions disaster to liberate a duties professionally
1) Even though these counts have been finished as a make a difference of slight in rapist proceedings, a Prosecution has consistently refused to divulge element critical to my defence, including:
(a) assign acknowledgement list;
(b) primary sanatorium conference notes combined by a healing examiners of a complainant during HBKL;
(c) acknowledgement statements (including which of complainant); as good ! as (d) d ebate samples as good as exhibits for eccentric conference as good as verification. All this has caused substantial prejudice to my counterclaim as good as occasioned grave injustice. The usually finish which a single can pretty draw from a prosecutions persistence in this action of perversity is which unseen hands have been during work as good as it is certainly not a palm of God.
2) Your disaster to reply during a march of a conference to several attempts by persons antagonistic to me to discredit me by commenting upon aspects of the! trial. These included presumably we should yield samples of his DNA; blaming a counterclaim for a delay of a proceedings; as good as reporting upon counts which were a theme of a suppression order. These open comments were finished presumably in come-back of your orders which they not be made.
They were finished by UMNO officials as good as politicians, together with Dato Seri Najib orchestrated by a tranquil electronic as good as print media, such as Utusan Malaysia, Berita Harian, a New Straits Times and TV3. The consistent comments by a Prime Minister as good as UMNO officials in a media as good as inauspicious comments upon a progress of a conference were obviously distributed to change we as good as illustrates a domestic motive during a during a behind of of a charge.
3) The ultimate action of viewable negligence occurred usually last Tuesday as good as Wednesday over TV3 which broadcasted a pre-recorded talk with a complainant observant things which have been obviously in negligence of a jot down in apply oneself of a trial. In particular, a brazen description of himself as a victim who is a pious as good as God fearing Muslim who has sworn upon a Quran which he is a acknowledgement of truth.
4) But a law is which even as a conference was in progress, a complainant who was intent to someone else was shamelessly carrying an eventuality with a partial of of a assign team. Quite d! etached from a consequences of such an eventuality upon a control of a prosecution, a complainants facade of moral rectitude is cracked by this shameful eventuality with a woman prosecutor who herself was additionally intent with an additional man.
5) In annoy of all this, a complainant, assisted by a full force of a UMNO propaganda machine, around their media, has left to town to vilify me. The indicate is which all comments were distributed to discredit me, adversely change a march of a jot down as good as to intimidate a witnesses during a trial. In annoy of all these viewable transgressions, we have steadfastly refused to reply to any of these acts of con! temptuou s behaviour.
The honest avocation of a decider is not to sit tongue-tied when a law provides for a probity of a own motion to emanate show-cause notices opposite those who interfere in a administration department department of justice. we am reminded of a maxim Judex Habere Debet Duos Sales, Salem Sapicutiae, Ne Sit Insipidus, Et Salem Conscientiea, Ne Sit Diabolous, a English translation of which is, A decider should have dual salts, a salt of wisdom, lest he be insipid; as good as a salt of conscience, lest he be devilish.
The bureau of a decider is a single of a many satisfactory in a country; he is a voice of a legislator as good as a organ for dispensing justice; he binds a change between a senior manager as good as a subject.
Even some-more significantly, in a liberate of his duties, a decider should be aware of Allahs command:
and let not hatred of others swerve we in to blunder as good as skip from justice. Be just, which is nearer to piety. Fear Allah, For Allah is good acquainted with all which we do (Surah al-Maidah: 
In a center of a Second World War in 1942, Lord Atkin, in Liversidge v Anderson! , had mo vement to contend in a House of Lords,
It has long been a single of a pillars of freedomthat a judges have been no respecters of persons as good as mountain between a theme as good as any attempted encroachment upon his liberty by a executive, rapt to see which any coercive movement is justified by law.
In my case, Yang Arif, presiding in an adversarial trial, had a residual energy as good as a bureau to have invoked Yang Arifs powers relating to negligence of court. Yang Arif chose not to do so for reasons many appropriate good good well known to Yang Arif. What has happened is not in a many appropriate traditions of a Judiciary.
In a ongoing Banting attempted murder trial, a schooled conference decider in which case, Yang Arif Datuk Akhtar Tahir, to! ok it up upon himself to summon a local television writer over a shave it aired during a budding news slot relating to a counterclaim in a attempted murder conference of Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya as good as three others. A journal clipping of which report is annexed herewith. Y.A. Datuk Akhtar Tahir has courageously demonstrated authorised activism in a name of human rights as good as a compulsory requirement of a satisfactory trial.
To devalue a in front of to incredulity, a open liaison relating to DPP Farah Azlina Latiff carrying an eventuality with PW1 did not courtesy Yang Arif. This unsympathetic attribute should have alerted Yang Arif in which we was been denied a satisfactory conference for a facile reason which Farah Azlina Latiff would have had entrance to a review papers being a partial of of a prosecutions group and, therefore, PW1 would, by this relationship, would have had hold of a statements since by witnesses, together with my pretext witnesses in a march of a investigation.
na Latiff for a wrong eventuality with SP1. All which was finished was which Farah Azlina Latiff was taken off a assign group during a insistence of a assign which was an open acknowledgment of a hold up of! which w rong affair. Farah Azlina Latiff did not repudiate a allegations opposite her. Neither was PW1 recalled by a assign to repudiate a hold up of this tasteless affair.
The Attorney-General had publicly settled a reasons would be since after to comment for a contemptible affair. That has nonetheless to eventuate.
Yet, in a face of this, Yang Arif, during a tighten of a assign case, finished a anticipating which PW1 was a guileless acknowledgement from this thoroughfare in a visualisation as follows,
Nothing came out from a extensive interrogate of PW1 or from a justification of alternative prosecutions witnesses which could indicate what PW1 had told in his justification was something which was not probable. we find PW1s justification remains intact. He had truthfully as good as though decoration or deceit in his justification narrated in notation item ho! w he was sodomised by a indicted upon a date as good as during a place settled in a charge. we find him to be guileless acknowledgement as good as his justification is arguable as good as if accepted would establish all a contribution compulsory to infer a assign opposite a accused.
My lawyers had obviously finished a submission which Yang Arif had finished a prejudgment when Yang Arif ought to have usually finished findings as to who was telling a law during a finish of a defence, in which event, we would have since justification underneath oath. My lawyers did not, during any time, advert to a thoroughfare upon tip of in isolation. They zeroed in upon a obvious, namely, presumably a acknowledgement was guileless or not had to be motionless during a tighten of a counterclaim case. The supplies of territory 182A(1) of a Criminal Procedure Code provided a decider with which superintendence though to no avail. That territory bears repeating.
It states:
At a finish of a trial, a probity shall cruise all a justification adduced prior to to it as good as shall decide presumably a assign has valid a box over! reasona ble doubt.
Pursuant to what we have settled above, we have been denied a good of putting up my counterclaim underneath oath. That amounts to deprivation of a satisfactory conference as good as a hold up of a level personification field.
The Court of Appeal going out of line
My interest to a Court of Appeal over a recusal of Yang Arif upon comment of prejudgment, following which would have resulted in biasness was listened upon 6th July, 2011. A duplicate of a process is annexed herewith.
No combined visualisation was handed down by a Court of Appeal upon 6th July. The interest was discharged summarily upon a rough conflict taken by a assign which a process appealed opposite was not a last order. Those were a reasons since in open court. Nothing more, zero less. The Court of Appeal took no some-more than 5 minutes to dispose of a appeal.
Unbeknownst to me or my lawyers, there was during a same time a 40-page visualisation underneath a palm of Yang Arif Datuk Haji! Abdul M alik Bin Haji Ishak additionally antiquated 6th July, 2011.
Why did a Court of Appeal not examination out a 91 paragraphed drift of visualisation antiquated 6th Jul upon 6th Jul itself? Obviously, this visualisation was during palm upon 6th Jul though had secretly been concealed from my hold as good as a hold of a public. The minute antiquated 11th August, 2011 supplying a duplicate of this visualisation to my lawyers is annexed herewith.
As is usual, Yang Arif contingency have had a good of reading this visualisation which will serve intensify your disposition opposite me. The visualisation is an open as good as extreme conflict upon me to which we will advert in due course. Suffice to contend during this juncture which here is a visualisation of a Court of Appeal combined after 6th July, 2011 which contains harsh criticism opposite me though my being since a eventuality to reply.
But which begs a question: a interest had been discharged in limine upon a gro! und whic h a process appealed opposite was not a last order. That should have been a finish of a make a difference since it followed which a probity had no bureau to entertain a appeal. [Yang Arif. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak sat tongue-tied during a march of submissions upon a rough objection]. The make a difference did not go over in to a merits. That is what a Court of Appeal voiced upon 6th Jul though going an inch further. The rough conflict is adverted to, not as a categorical partial of a judgment. The major partial of a visualisation goes beyond. It is a frolic of his own used for a purpose of hitting out during me.
If which was so, why did Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak enter upon upon a relentless conflict upon me in a rest of a judgment? In fact, he had no bureau to do so. This is a viewable abuse of authorised power, perhaps in a surreptitious try to curry favours of a domestic masters? Otherwise, how else can a single explain as to why he embarked upon such a scurrilous conflict upon me by observant in a following paragraphs as numbered:
[5] This box will fall in history. It w! sick be c hronicled as a usually good good well known box in a nation or for which make a difference inside of a Commonwealth enclave where a appellant as an indicted chairman steadfastly as good as consistently filed a single duplicate after an additional in an try to recuse a schooled conference decider from conference as good as stability to listen to a sodomy conference which is ongoing.
[6] It seems which a appellant here is trying his level many appropriate to scuttle his sodomy conference for reasons many appropriate good good well known to him, much to a discomfit of a assign as good as a annoyance of a members of a open during large.
[15] It was certainly an uncalled for criticism [against a schooled judge] bent to mistreat as good as confuse a uninitiated. It is easy to criticise though it is always difficult to justify it.
[18] It is additionally difficult for! us to a ccept which a Notice of Motion was filed out of a genuine belief which a schooled conference decider had been inequitable opposite a appellant.
[49] The assign graphically described what a appellant did to Mohd Saiful Bukhari Bin Azlan [PW1.] [It is facile which it is a evidence, not a charge, which proves an offence].
[50] The conference was unduly prolonged. It perceived far-reaching media coverage.
[56] After such a fine arrangement of authorised impropriety, Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak right away has audacity to condescend us about a sound authorised system by stating, in what sounds similar to a broken symbol, as follows:
The perquisites of a sound authorised system have been autonomy as good as impartiality. For an in result as good as a clever authorised system, a forthrightness of a judges have been of peerless importance. But it cannot be denied which a publics confidence in a authorised system is shaped as good as moulded some-more by appearances.
Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak rather ungraciously, as good as though jurisdiction, took a swipe during a visualisation of his brother judges of a Court of Appeal together with Richard Malanjum, right away Chief Judge (Sabah as good as Sarawak), with a viewable purpose of degrading them when stating:
[72] Ro! wstead d id not cruise a genuine risk of disposition exam in last presumably a schooled JC should have recused himself notwithstanding a Federal Court had progressing upon practical a pronounced exam in:
(a) Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v Syarikat Bekerjasama-sama Serbaguna Sungai Gelugor dengan Tanggungan [1999] 3 MLJ 1, FC; and
(b) Mohamed Ezam garbage garbage garbage garbage bin Mohd Nor & Ors v Ketua Polis Negara [2002] 1 MLJ 321, FC
[73] Consequently, Rowsteads suggestion which a request for recusal to be heard
by an additional decider is quite radical. We definitely contend which a recusal request, similar to a benefaction matter, was righteously ! listened during a primary instance by a schooled conference decider as good as followed by this court.
[74] Rowstead did not cruise nor ventilate upon territory 3 of a CJA examination with territory 50(1)(a) of a CJA as good as a Explanatory Statement thereto.
[75] The recusal duplicate housed in a Notice of Motion endangered a long long conference which saw a authorised manoeuvrings activated by a appellant during each nook as good as dilemma in an try to scuttle a rapist conference of a appellant for an offence of sodomising PW1. It is a mom of all trials in Malaysia.
[I had each right to exhaust all authorised remedies open to me. No try has been finished by anyone, or any quarter, to forestall me from we do so by looking an process to acknowledgement me a vexatious litigant].
As alluded to progressing in this statement, Yang Arif would have had a advantage of reading this visualisation after it was distributed by minute antiquated 11th August, 2011. This, in effect, amounts to placing, by Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak, purported bad impression justification upon my behalf.
In view of this, how can we get a satisfactory conference or even a emergence of a single prior to to a conference decider right away who has been serve put in a in front of to devalue biasness opposite me?
How can we presumably give justification underneath promise when a DPP has, in his possession, a same visualisation which could be used opposite me in cross-examination? Y.A. cannot be dis! abused o f what has been fed to Y.A. by Yang Arif Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak when delivering a visualisation antiquated 6th July, 2011 which obviously, carrying courtesy to a length thereof, contingency have been rebuilt good prior to to 6th July, 2011.
This is scandalous.
Yang Arif has combined a in front of underneath which we cannot give justification underneath oath. we say, with all a force during my command, which we would have been rebuilt as good as peacefu! l to giv e justification underneath promise though for a handicaps foisted upon me, in a demeanour Y.A. has conducted a conference as good as in a demeanour in which a Court of Appeal visualisation antiquated 6th July, 2011 would have come to a notice of Y.A. with courtesy to what we have settled herein before.
Then again, why wasnt a visualisation which, even if combined after midnight upon 5th July, 2011 examination out in open probity so which we could opposite as good as explode all a allegations finished opposite me by Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak?
It is facile no a single should be condemned, unheard. This is axiomatic. As far during a behind of as 12th August, 1999 a Federal Court, a tip probity in a land, in Insas Bhd as good as Anor v Ayer Molek Rubber Company Bhd as good as others had occasion, after adverting to a authorities upon a in front of to rule,
The offensive remarks finished by a Court of Appeal opposite a High Court, a applicants as good as their warn ought to be expunged from a visualisation of a Court of Appeal, as it had a bent to bring a whole administration department department of law as good as process in to disrepute. Judicial pronouncements should be authorised in inlet as good as should not skip from sobriety, moderation, as good as reserve. It additionally should not arrangement tension as good as intemperance, as displayed in a visualisation of a Court of Appeal.
Adverting to an Indian Supreme Court box of State of Uttar Pradesh v Mohd Naim, a Federal Court had movement to adopt what was pronounced there as follows;
If there is a single element of principal significance in a administration department department of justice, it is this: a proper! leisure as good as autonomy of judges as good as magistrates contingency be confirmed as good as they contingency be authorised to perform their functions openly as good as fearlessly as good as though unjustified interference by anybody, even by this court. At a same! time it is similarly compulsory which in expressing their opinions, judges as good as magistrates contingency be guided by considerations of justice, satisfactory play as good as restraint. It is not infrequent which sweeping generalizations improved a really purpose for which they have been made. It has been judicially famous which in a make a difference of creation adverse remarks opposite persons or authorities whose control comes in to consideration prior to to courts of law in cases to be motionless by them, it is applicable to consider: (a) presumably a celebration whose control is in subject is prior to to a probity or has an eventuality of explaining or defending himself; (b) presumably there is justification upon jot down temperament upon which control justifying a remarks; as good as (c) presumably it is compulsory for a preference of a case, as an integral partial thereof, to animadvert upon conduct. It has additionally been famous which authorised pronouncements contingency be authorised in nature, as good as should not normally skip from sobriety, mediation as good as reserve.
In Insas, a Federal Court adopted what was pronounced in AM Mathur v Pramod Kumar Gupta & Ors when dismissing an assumingly unsustainable examination apply to which had sure derogative remarks opposite Mr A.M Mathur, a senior advocate as good as additionally a ex-Advocate General of a State. The Court had movement to hold,
Judicial patience as good as discipline have been as compulsory to a nurse administration department department of probity as they have been to a efficacy of a army. The avocation of restraint, this piety of avocation should be a consistent theme of a judges. This peculiarity in decision-making is as much compulsory for judges to command apply oneself as to protect a autonomy of a judiciary. Judicial patience in this courtesy competence be improved called authorised respect, which is, apply oneself by a judiciary. Respect to those who come prior to to a probity a! s good a s to alt! ernative co-ordinate branches of a State, a senior manager as good as a legislature. There contingency be mutual respect. When these qualities fail or when litigants as good as open hold which a decider has unsuccessful in these qualities, it will be conjunction good for a decider nor for a authorised process. The Judges Bench is a chair of power. Not usually do judges have energy to have binding decisions, their decisions legitimate a make make use of of of energy by alternative officials. The judges have a absolute as good as unchallengeable control of a probity domain. But they cannot misuse their management by intemperate comments, vulgar banter of scathing criticism of counsel, parties or witnesses. We concur which a probity had a inherent energy to action openly upon a own conviction upon any make a difference entrance prior to to it for adjudication, though it is a ubiquitous element of a tip significance to a correct administration department department of probity which derogative remarks ought not to be finished opposite persons or authorities whose control comes in to consideration unless it is positively compulsory for a preference of a box to animadvert upon their conduct.
Chief Justice of India, Bhagwati, in State of Madya Pradesh & Ors v Nandlal & Ors, in expressing his clever condemnation of a strictures finished by a judge, stated:
We competence observe in finish which judges should not make make use of of clever as good as caviling denunciation whilst criticizing a control of parties or their witnesses. They contingency action with sobriety, mediation as good as restraint. They contingency have a piety to recognize which they have been not infallible as good as any harsh as good as adverse strictures upheld by them opposite any celebration competence be mistaken as good as unjustified as good as if so, they competence do substantial mistreat as good as mischief as good as result in injustice. Here, in a benefaction case, a observations finished as good as strictures ! upheld b y BM Lal J were all unjustified as good as unwarranted as good as they ought not to have been made.
How could we underneath these resources give justification underneath oath?
Yang Arif, when creation a process for a witnes! ses offe red to a counterclaim for talk in court, gave a lifeline to a witnesses in observant in open probity which they could bar to be interviewed. Yang Arif did not in we do so uniformly handle a beam of justice. Yang Arif combined as good as perpetuated an imbalance unbecoming any a single land a layer of justice. In fact, a Prime Minister, Dato Seri Najib Tun Razak, as good as his wife, Datin Seri Rosmah binti Mansor, former Inspector General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan, as good as SAC Dato Rodhwan garbage garbage garbage garbage bin Ismail who featured prominently in a justification of PW1 came to a talk room echoing similar protests namely, We have been not rebuilt to be interviewed with a Prime Minister observant Yang Arif suggested this could be done. These were element witnesses constrained a counterclaim right away to review to causing subpoenas to be released for their presence.
Yang Arif has combined a in front of underneath which we cannot give justification underneath oath. we say, with all a force during my command, which we would have been rebuilt as good as peaceful to give justification underneath promise though for a handicaps foisted upon me, in a demeanour Yang Arif has conducted a conference as good as in a demeanour in which a Court of Appeal visualisation antiquated 6th July, 2011 would have come to a notice of Yang Arif with courtesy to what we have settled herein before.
My conference is an adversarial a single as good as Yang Arif ought not to have descended in to a arena by suggesting witnesses offering to a counterclaim could repudiate to be interviewed. It did not come inside of a range of Yang Arif to do so.
My pretext witnesses finished good good well known to a assign were in actuality included in a assign list of wi! tnesses which was not supplied to my lawyers. They were counterclaim pretext witnesses. we am sensitive this is a primary time this has been done.
In fact, a owner of a section 11-5-2, Haji Hasanuddin garbage garbage garbage garbage bin Abd Hamid, had been tormented by a military for a sum of thirty hours in a recording of his statements which were all video recorded. This was viewable when he was interviewed by a counterclaim lawyers in my prese! nce. The Police review has scuttled my defence.
To have a hoax of a situation, a assign offering during a tighten of their box an pretext acknowledgement named, Fitria binti Dipan, who by their own acknowledgment cannot be traced.
The complainants allegations have been pure fabrication
As we have pronounced during a outset, we definitely repudiate a allegations finished opposite me by a complainant.
The complainant settled in justification upon 26th June, 2008 he arrived during Kondominium Desa Damansara during 2.45 p.m. to discuss work counts as good as hand-over documents since to him by a single Ibrahim Yaakob [my Chief of Staff] to myself. He says he stopped his outpost during a confidence post as good as mentioned a formula name Mokhtar to a guards during a common ownership prior to to being authorised in. He parked his vehicle as good as took a lift to Unit 11-5-1 where we was allegedly seated during a dining list in a vital room. He says he sat down during a same list as good as started a discussion. He told a probity of a crude demeanour in which we had allegedly asked for sex.
When questioned, he answered which he was indignant as good as scared as good as which he was not rebuilt to do it though purportedly since we had appeared angry, he eventually obliged. It has to be observed during this theatre a complainant could have, upon his own acknowledgment in examination-in-chief, left a room as there is no justification of any try by me to fasten a door from inside.
He had serve purported ! which he was systematic in to a bedroom as good as which he did enter out of fear. Even during this stage, a complainant had a eventuality to leave a vital room. He did not do so. The rest of a justification in this courtesy obviously showed which a complainant had each eventuality upon each movement to flee though he did not do so. His reason was which he was petrified by fear. But such a reason flies opposite a facts. Here is a male in his early twenties, a six-footer, physically fit as good as strong as good as with powerful connectors in a tip military coronet as good as a domestic elite with acces! s to a really middle sanctum of power. Additionally, he has additionally been a key UMNO student operative, carrying undergone a severe training conducted by a Biro Tata Negara of a Prime Ministers Department.
And here we was a 60-year-old male with a story of during a behind of injury who had undergone a major during a behind of surgery land no in front of of power. If in law we could have exercised any kind of unjustified change or mental vigour upon him, this could have been simply neutralized by a quick phone call to his connections. As regards a fright of physical harm, it would take a good widen of a aptitude to indicate which we could poise any physical mistreat to him.
Under cross-examination, a following poignant justification was elicited from a complainant. He certified which he had brought along lubricant as good as had himself willingly as good as though hesitation practical it. He claimed which carnal retort took place as good as which it was painful as good as coarse. However, this was obviously not borne out in a healing justification in a assign box suggesting fissures or tears. After a purported act, he testified which he had a drink as good as intent in a accessible review with me. Startlingly, no try was finished by a complainant to find evident healing attention. Instead, he attended a PKR avocation a following day. In a evening, he joined a assembly of a Anwar Ibrahim Club duri! ng my ch ateau though showing any sign of presumably emotional or physical annoy let alone trauma.
On a contrary, he was going about counts in a calm as good as assured manner. His control thus is all inconsistent with carrying been violated. In any event, he conjunction finished a military report nor sought healing attention, notwithstanding which dual days prior to to a purported act, he had met with Najib as good as Rosmah as good carrying talked upon a phone with Musa Hassan as good as met with Rodhwan during a hotel.
It is obvious, from a justification above, which a complainant was fibbing by his teeth nonetheless Y.A., notwithstanding a constrained justification to a contrary, found ! him a tr uthful acknowledgement during a tighten of a assign case. This defies logic, let alone a law.
Then again, a expert justification with courtesy to DNA led in a march of assign box by PW4, Dr. Seah Lay Hong as good as PW5, Nor Aidora bt Saedon was highly questionable in which consequential report regarding to a DNA research of both a pronounced witnesses which they were thankful to furnish to a probity was suspiciously withheld notwithstanding them confirming a hold up of such information.
The genuine probability which a samples analyzed were contaminated as good as even planted were utterly overlooked notwithstanding such possibilities entrance obviously inside of guidelines set by a general debate village which were utterly ignored, if not, blatantly overlooked by PW4 as good as PW5 to fit a prosecutions case.
It is viewable had a pronounced possibilities been explored, a conclusions reached would have been really opposite in which a complainants own semen was found in his own anus, there was ample justification of contributors alternative than Male Y around a complainants perianal, lower as good as aloft rectal segment as good as there was transparent justification of a samples carrying been tampered with prior to to they were sent for analysis. In such circumstances, a firmness of a p! ronounce d samples was certainly compromised.
Furthermore, a forthrightness of PW4 was highly questionable carrying courtesy to a approach in which she utterly discharged a really tall probability which a samples sent to her would have degraded to a sure grade by a time they reached her which such plunge was utterly absent from all samples in this case. This obviously points to a viewable reality which a samples sent for research could not have been what were extracted from a complainants person.
Trial inside of a trial
The Gestapo-like demeanour in which we was arrested as good as a successive apprehension as good as interrogation by a military all betrayed a hands of a domestic masters during work. What was a need to send in b! alaclava clad commandos to result a detain if not to try to flex domestic flesh as good as to arrangement pure vindictiveness? These startling contribution were utterly ignored by Yang Arif.
Yang Arif had finished an progressing statute to bar a recovery of sure equipment together with H2O bottle, Good Morning towel, tooth pulp from a lock-up during IPK, Kuala Lumpur where we had been detained overnight from 16.7.08 to 17.7.08. However, we reversed this statute subsequently which is something many intolerable as good as unprecedented.
Although in a Trial Within a Trial, we had adverted to a purpose of Taufik as good as Supt. Jude Pereira, a assign inaugurated usually to call Taufik in come-back in a Trial Within a Trial. Taufik attempted to furnish a issue duplicate of a aver of detain which was usually noted as an ID and, therefore, could not be deliberate as justification in a Trial Within a Trial. A issue duplicate of a request is not admissible as justification in a probity of law. It was in a Trial Within a Trial which primary justification of a request ought to have been since if a original jot down had been lost or destroyed.
I contend it since as Ive settled earlier, a courts firmness has been utterly com! promised as good as bears all a classical symptoms of a uncover conference where a book has been effectively combined as good as a result a foregone conclusion. we contend it since as a presiding decider we have demonstrated over a shade of a disbelief your finish lack of impartiality.
The assign could not, by producing a original aver of detain in a categorical trial, cure a infirmity. It is in justification which 3 copies of a aver of detain were in a receive of Supt. Jude Pereira. The justification of a aver of detain was accessible during a Trial Within a Trial.
Even Supt. Jude Periera, whose purpose was adverted to by me during a Trial Within a Trial, chose not to take a mountain notwithstanding carrying had a eventuality to have produced a original duplicate of a aver of detain in a Trial Within a T! rial.
It was during a Trial Within a Trial which Supt.Jude Periera should have testified. It was obviously wrong for a probity to accept Supt. Jude Perieras justification in a ubiquitous conference for a purpose of rebutting my justification in a Trial Within a Trial which a DNA profiling from a Good Morning towel, toothbrush as good as mineral H2O bottle had been obtained by astray methods as good as astray equates to as good as my arrest, therefore, had been procured unlawfully.
In fact, Supt. Jude Perieras justification in a ubiquitous conference confirms which there had been non-compliance with Rule twenty of a Lock-up Rules, 1953 in which I, after my detain upon 16.7.08, had not been placed in a lock-up from 6pm to 6am a following day. The supplies of Rule twenty have been mandatory.
If this was a in front of in a case, which it was, then, clearly, my being taken to a HKL in crack of Rule twenty reflected astray equates to as good as astray methods being in use by a military to acquire a DNA profiling from a equipment set out hereinbefore. The in front of is serve compounded by a justification of Supt. Jude Periera in a ubiquitous conference which he did not approac! h milita ry crew in assign of a lock-up not to hold a pronounced equipment notwithstanding a military crew in a ubiquitous conference prior to to a Trial Within a Trial, clearly, observant which Supt. Jude Periera had finished so.
So a in front of comes to this, Supt. Jude Periera, in his justification upon promise in a categorical trial, supports a counterclaim box which astray methods as good as astray equates to had been used by a military to acquire DNA profiling from a equipment set out hereinbefore.
From a statute finished by a probity to bar a items, it is transparent it was formed upon astray equates to as good as astray methods in use by a military meaning it was by trick as good as deception which a military attempted to introduce a DNA evidence.
In any event, from a justification of DSP Taufik since in a Trial Within a Trial as good as a ubiquitous trial, a drift of detain could not have been since by him to me in Segambut as this is, clearly, contradicted ! by a e vidence of S.N. Nair as good as myself.
The subject of severe justification since in a categorical conference by DSP Taufik as good as Supt. Jude Periera does not arise. It was a assertions finished underneath promise by me which my detain was wrong as good as astray methods as good as astray equates to had been used to acquire his DNA profiling in a Trial Within a Trial stood unchallenged by a assign by heading lawful justification in come-back of those assertions. In fact, Yang Arif should have drawn an inauspicious inference opposite a assign for not carrying finished so.
Forensic evidence
The assign box rests upon a justification of a DNA as good as so called findings of seminal fluid or spermatazoa as they claim. As a make a difference of fact, this is a usually debate justification upon which a substructure of a prosecutions ostensible proof rests. Yet, this substructure is erected upon unsure drift though this has not prevented them operative in palm in glove with a po! wers whi ch be to mountain an insidious as good as relentless campaign to vilify me.
The actuality is which there is not an iota of evidence, DNA or otherwise, which has ever been found in a premises of a purported act, not in a rinse room, bed room, carpets or anywhere else where such justification ought to have been found.
Supt. Pereira, notwithstanding being instructed to keep a HKL samples (marked B1 to B10) in a freezer, upon purpose defied a direction of Dr Siew Sheue Fong (HKL Forensic Doctor) as good as additionally certified which he was in critical crack of a IGSO, (he even settled he took full as good as personal shortcoming for violation of a IGSO), when he upon purpose kept a HKL samples in his bureau cupboard for about 43 hrs prior to to delivering them to a Chemist.
One contingency not forget which a purported action was ostensible to have occurred dual days prior to to a pronounced samples carrying been extracted. Coupled with this 43-hour delay in delivery to a Chemist, it would mean which a samples were already during least 90 hours old by a time they were carefully suspicion about by a Chemist. Undoubtedly, ! a samp les would have all degraded. Yet justification by a assign claimed which no plunge of any outcome had occurred.
In any event, even a 43-hour delay alone would have severely compromised a firmness of a samples in conditions of a decrease due to bacterial action. Also, by not storing a samples in a military vaunt store (which will settle entrance usually to him), his deliberate omission of such despotic manners of a IGSO has by his really act, presented an eventuality as good as probability of tampering of a samples as entrance to others was finished easier. This was disregarded.
There have been additionally no reasoning or constrained reasons both in law as good as use for Supt Jude Pereira to cut open P27 (the large tamperproof bag containing all a HKL samples which was sealed as good as handed over to him), evidently to remark them (B1 to B10). It is ! transpar ent which this action was usually a convenient excuse to get entrance to a individual samples which by themselves were obviously not tamperproof as they were upon purpose sealed with typical as good as simply removable tapes as good as simply removable HKL paper seals.
Dr Siew Sheue Fong , as evident in court, was many reluctant to impute to his healing notes during cross conference notwithstanding being unable to recollect details. During a mangle he was held secretly taking a hide peek of his notes. This dishonest action of a veteran alloy who ought to have conducted himself in a satisfactory as good as eccentric demeanour was blatantly ignored. Many a time Dr. Siew as good as Dr Mohd Razali Ibrahim upon purpose chose not to answer impending questions put to them by my counsel. Instead Dr Siew as good as Dr Razalis justification was accepted though reservation.
Dr Seah Lay Hong (the Chemist) gave justification which when she perceived a twelve HKL samples there were 2 samples which were noted as taken upon really opposite dates, she testified she did zero to find clarification from Dr Siew . She serve testified which she gave a good of disbelief to Dr Siew. My lawyers submitted strenuously which such acts! and/or omissions volume to a critical crack of a principal manners of general lab protocols as good as those of a Jabatan Kimia Malaysia. Despite such viewable exposures as good as contemptible failures of non observance of despotic rules, Dr Seahs justification was good perceived as good as in assemblage when it ought to have been jettisoned in assemblage for reasons of insufficiency as good as sum negligence.
The counterclaim justification will uncover which a assign explain to have proof of a participation of seminal fluid or spermatazoa is utterly unfounded. In fact, this purported proof is zero though pure fabrication, a actuality which is not which surprising deliberation a past story of a assign in this regard. If they had had any such debate evidence, they would have guar! ded it f or dear hold up rather than let it being handled in such a sloppy manner.
Summation
Yang Arif has unsuccessful to safeguard a satisfactory conference as demonstrated, lay away alia, by a following instances:
1. Your refusal during a march of a conference to process disclosure of element critical to my defence, many of which we suspicion was amply applicable as good as which fairness compulsory which we should process it to be disclosed prior to to a trial. Your disaster to sincerely as good as properly practice his authorised discretion to process disclosure was not usually discordant to Malaysian laws though overlooked a general standards expected of a complicated state which purports to use a process of law.
2. Your refusal to action accordingly presumably to take cognizance or to hold to comment those responsible for a extreme acts of leaking as good as publishing in a media of assign submissions prior to to a make a difference was listened in court; your finish indifference to my protestations about these transgressions has wittingly or unwittingly facilitated a swindling to vilify me in a probity of open perspective even as a conference is in progress.
3. Your disaster to process which witnesses critical to my counterclaim attend a conference to testify, in resources where their involvement was! patentl y element to a issues during conference as good as accessible underneath promise in a complainants sworn matter as good as certified by statements finished by these witnesses to a media. These witnesses describe to a resources in which a complainant came to have his early complaints opposite me. Nothing could be some-more element to a credit of a complainant.
4. Your anticipating a complainant to be a guileless acknowledgement during a tighten of a assign box obviously amounted to prejudgment demonstrating in a routine a transparent disposition opposite me. Consequently, we have deprived me of my constitutionally upon hearing right t! o a sati sfactory conference a result of which is to grant me to an umbrella release with a charges leveled opposite me falling to a ground. Notwithstanding this, we have not usually unsuccessful to process my release though have adamantly refused to recuse yourself from serve presiding during a trial.
5. Your arriving during a finish which a complainant was a acknowledgement of law though primary conference a justification of a counterclaim would render a delay of this conference an practice in futility. What make make use of of would there be for me to cite justification to uncover which a complainant is in actuality a liar if we have already found him to be a guileless acknowledgement as good as which his justification is arguable as good as decisive as good as by virtue of which irrefutable? It is untenable as good as a law does not concede we to do what we have done.
6. Your anticipating which a complainant has advanced himself by angry to a healing doctors of passionate assault was a glaring blunder of law detached from it being in sum negligence of a anticipating of fact, which is, which a clinical anticipating had indicated no justification of penetration. Additionally, your disaster to subject why a assign has for no strong reason refused to call in a primary healing officer who had carefully suspicion about a complainant to testify. Did it not cross your thoughts which this disaster was stirred by a need to conceal justification which competence be unfavourable to a prosecution?
7. Your usurpation though hesit! ation th e debate justification as corroborative of a complainants comment in resources where there were viewable concerns about how those samples were obtained, labelled, stored as good as analyzed.
Conclusion
This entire routine is zero though a swindling by Prime Minister Dato Seri Najib Razak to send me in to domestic unconcern by attempting once again to put me during a during a behind of of bars. we thus acknowledgement wh! ich we h ave no conviction whatsoever which probity will overcome in these jot down notwithstanding a valiant efforts finished by my counterclaim team. As we have pronounced during a outset, this is not a rapist trial. It is a charade staged by a powers which be to put me out of movement in process which they remain in power.
In 1998, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad did usually which as good as by his Machiavellian make make use of of of all a organs of energy of a State, succeeded in removing me convicted for fifteen years for offences which we had never committed. Such was a restraint as good as misapplication finished to me then. And such is a restraint as good as misapplication being perpetuated today.
Najib Razak is we do a same thing as his coach did, which is to occupy all equates to inside of his energy by a media, a Police, a Attorney General as good as a Judiciary in process to mishandle a march of probity as good as to take me out of a domestic equation.
This relentless conviction to send me during a behind of to prison became all a some-more needed since of a major victories gained by a opposition Pakatan Rakyat in a Mar 2008 elections. Their misfortune fears were confirmed when it became transparent which once my authorised disqualification was over we would be contesting for a parliamentary chair as good as if we won, would be inaugurated personality of a opposition.
It was thus no coincidence which this brand new swindling flush three months after a Mar 2008 victories as good as a grave assign opposite me was finished usually a single month prior to to my contesting a Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat.
The process of events which unfolded prior to to a formal! assign appeared to be lifted from a tract of 1998 minus, in this ultimate episode, a black eye eventuality as good as a purported victims being led in to probity as partners in crime. In this second episode, a conspirators have tweaked a tract to have a complainant take upon a purpose of a infirm victim, car! rying re alized which a 1998 process of employing Stalin-like confessions as good as a description of a purported victims as chagrined as good as chagrined passionate deviants were usually as well much for a open to believe.
Hence, during a entire conference of a complainant, a assign left no mill unturned in their try during portrayal a picture of a helpless, genuine as good as innocent immature male who is a acknowledgement of law as good as whose sworn matter should be believed in any box of any justification to a contrary. The actuality is which in a entire scheme of things, a complainant, who was usually a university drop out operative partial time helping out my arch of staff, is essentially a guaranty being in use by a untrustworthy plotters to grasp their divergent ends in a conspiracy. And nonetheless it was a preference of a probity after a tighten of a assign box which he in law is a guileless witness.
The credentials entailed in this swindling was many elaborate as good as went all a approach to a Prime Minister himself as good as his mother Rosmah Mansor both of whom by a complainants own acknowledgment had met him in their chateau where he purportedly complained of being intimately assaulted. The primary make a difference by Najib which he had met with a complainant merely to discuss about a grant was a viewable lie usually to be retracted after after assorted exposes were finished around a amicable media as good as a internet blogs. It was viewable which conjunction Najib nor Rosmah would not instruct to be seen to be partial of a swindling being themselves inextricable in a series of alternative scandals a sum of which have been raised in Parliament which to date have never been definitely refuted. But a stakes in this swindling have been so tall which zero can be left to pure possibility for inde! ed a p rospect of a UMNO led Barisan Nasional losing energy to Pakatan Rakyat is becoming some-more genuine by a day.
The categorical thrust of a swindling was to fashion this sodomy ! assign i n process to inflict limit damage to my impression in a run-up campaign to a by-elections. Towards this end, an heated as good as destructive media blitz was launched concurrently with a staging of rallies as good as ceramahs where a concentration of a debate was not upon any social, economic or even domestic issues though quite upon my chairman as good as my morality. The plotters for reasons good good well known usually to themselves became privy to report which would be used subsequently by a assign as good as went to town in an orgy of impression assassination distributed no disbelief to safeguard a degrading improved for me in a polls. But Allah is Great as good as instead of losing, we won a Permatang Pauh chair with a thumping infancy of 15,000 votes.
But a fervour to entrust me to domestic unconcern continues unabated. Najib seems to think which by destroying my domestic future, it would additionally destroy a prospects of Pakatan Rakyat ever entrance to power.
Hence, zero is spared to safeguard which we will be convicted in process which a UMNO-led Barisan supervision continues to rule.
Having courtesy to all a above, we right away instruct to state which this conference is for all intents as good as purposes a uncover trial. we contend this not to ridicule Yang Arif nor with passion towards any a single personally though we sit prior to to we in a wharf usually to speak what we know as good as what we hold with conviction to be a truth. And this conviction is borne by carrying been in open use for some-more than forty years a entertain of which was outlayed inside of a walls of bonds in Kamunting as good as in Sungai Buloh.
The actuality remains which we was condemned to imprisonment not since of any crime which we had committed though for my domestic ideology as good as convictions as good as some-more significantly since during a behind of in 1998 we had acted a transparent as good as benefaction hazard to a some-more than dual decades of autocratic process of Mahathir! .
I sa! y it bec ause as Ive settled earlier, a courts firmness has been utterly compromised as good as bears all a classical symptoms of a uncover conference where a book has been effectively combined as good as a result a foregone conclusion. we contend it since as a presiding decider we have demonstrated over a shade of a disbelief your finish lack of impartiality. we contend it since we have consistently refused to recuse yourself even in a face of ascent justification of your disposition opposite me.
I contend it as well since we have steadfastly turned a blind eye to a sum violations of custom as good as procession committed by a assign whilst during a same superfluous impervious to my protestations about these viewable irregularities which would have though some-more alerted any impartial decider as to a malice as good as bad conviction of a prosecution.
In a make a difference of a avocation of a judge, a Holy Quran commands: And when we decider between mankind, afterwards we decider justly (Surah An-Nisaa: 58)
* Full make a difference by Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim during a High Court upon August 22, 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment