I thought the police report was made on June 28, and DNA sample taken
on that day.
Why the statement made only on the 29th.
Is this the reason why Saiful's statements were denied from the
defence?
The judge reasoned that there is no contradiction. Which contradiction
was he refering to?
Was it about Saiful claim of being forcefully sodomised by Anwar?
Or was it about the date of making statements?
How can the judge make judgements based on his view, instead of the
view of the defendant?
Is this the practise in Malaysian courts to deny defendants the
statements of those who accuse someone of any wrong doing?
When I went to court to sue the LHDN, I had to submit my charge to
them personally. Why is it so different this time when a citizen is
accused by another? Doesn't he have the right to know what he is
accused of?
What is the rationale for denying the basic right of a defendant to
know what he is accused of?
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/131465
|
Karpal moves to impeach Saiful, decision tomorrow
May 11, 10 9:40am
Justice Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah adjourns the trial to tomorrow, when he
will rule on whether to allow the defence's application to scrutinise
Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan's statement to the police.
9.51am: Justice Mohd Zabidin adjourns the trial to tomorrow, when he
will rule on whether to allow the defence's application to scrutinise
Saiful's statement to the police.
NONE9.40am: Karpal (right) says his hunch is based on what the witness
had said with regards to the sodomy having been non-consensual.
"Anwar is charged with 377b (relating to an act of) consensual
(sodomy), but Saiful says it was non-consensual."
Investigations, therefore, should have been under section 377c.
This is more than a hunch, says Karpal, and this is proven by the
contradiction in Saiful's testimony.
High Court Justice Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah says this is the first time
that a matter of this nature has come up - the accused is being
charged with consensual (sodomy) though the evidence suggests the act
was non-consensual.
9.25am: If it is non-consensual anal intercourse, it should be section
377c of the Penal Code, not 377b under which Anwar is charged, says
Karpal.
Solicitor-General II Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden submits that there must
be something there (to the charge). There was no consent, he adds, but
the defendant has been charged with a charge less than that.
"If there is a hunch, Your Honour can look at the witness statement
first to look (at) whether there was (a) foundation to such claims,"
says Mohd Yusof.
It is the prosecution's prerogative to charge Anwar (under) consensual
(sodomy, which) is a lesser offence and (entails lesser) punishment,
rather than non-consensual (sodomy), Mohd Yusof argues.
NONE9:24am: Karpal argues that since Saiful (left) had stated the
intercourse to be non-consensual, whereas Anwar is charged under
Section 377b for consensual sex against the order of nature, there is
a conflict between the charge and Saiful's statement.
"There is certainly something wrong with the framing of the charge,
and this warrants our application to look at the statement that was
recorded.
"In Malaysia, we know that sex between males done with consent is also
an offence. However, the witness had repeatedly said and maintained
that the sex was non-consensual," says Karpal.
Karpal moves to impeach Saiful on grounds of a 'hunch' that the
witness had lied.
azlan9.12am: Saiful says investigating officer DSP Jude Pereira was
the only one who took his statement. He cannot remember how many
statements were given, but there were many.
"Each time, the statement was recorded at Brickfields police station
and other places as well.
"The first statement was recorded on June 29, 2008," says Saiful,
emphasising that he had said in the statement that he had been
sodomised without kerelaan (his consent).
Asked by Karpal whether he had made the statement outside the court,
the witness said he cannot remember.
Karpal asks Saiful if he had always stated that the sodomy was against
his will and Saiful said he had.
When asked whether if this had always been the case, Saiful said he
was not sure.
Karpal is now submitting to obtain the statement that Saiful had given
to DSP Pereira.
NONE9.10am: Instead of giving his submission on key witness Mohd
Saiful Bukhari Azlan's statement, as he said yesterday he would do
today, Karpal has applied to continue cross-examining the alleged
sodomy victim. Saiful takes the stand.
9.00am: Anwar arrives at Duta Court with his wife Wan Azizah Wan
Ibrahim. Also present are PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang and PAS Youth
chief Nasrudin Tantawi.
Police seem to be quite strict today, guarding the lobby area of the
Duta Complex in Kuala Lumpur. Photographers are not allowed to enter
the complex, and only can take photos outside the building.
VIDEO | 4 mins
View Comments (41)
Comment is available to Malaysiakini Subscriber only
Terms of Use: Please note that foul language will not be tolerated.
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, and antisocial
behaviour such as "spamming" and "trolling" will be removed. Violators
run the risk of being blocked permanently. You are fully responsible
for the content you post. Please be responsible and stay on topic.
Remember that all comments are linked back to your Malaysiakini
subscription. In order to avoid someone else making comments using
your account, please avoid sharing your password with others. You have
the option to change your display name and you may also add an icon in
order to highlight your comment. For longer comments, please send them
to editor@malaysiakini.com as a Letter to the Editor.
Do please note that depending on area bandwidth usage, there may be a
delay of 15 minutes of more before comments posted appear on our site.
Comments 1 to 25 of 41
SATINAH BTE OSMAN Earlier there was some talk about Saiful's father
and his 'influence' within UMNO. The Lion of Jelutong and no more the
Tiger of Jelutong may be having this up his sleeve. Anwar is having
the cream of the Legal Service behind him. The Other Party will thus
cook up and keep on frustrating the Defence in the same way that Uncle
Hacks now residing in Hell did in SODOMY i.
yesterday · Report
Ichigo Tiger jelutong, please don't spoil my business plan. At least
ask the name of the "penetration-proof" lubricant before the
impeachment, I am keen to get the sole distributorship for such a
"court-proven" product.
yesterday · Report
Keanjin Rosy mama tonight will scold the film director stupid for
coming out with stupid script and let the whole world laugh!
yesterday · Report
DOC Looks like the judiciary, prosecution and their UMNO advisers will
be having a late night today in trying to concoct something to counter
Karpal's move to impeach Saiful. Let's see what hair brain move they
are going to make tomorrow.
yesterday · Report
Zz2XX Well, well, now it's back to the drawing board for umNO's
henchmen. They have to see Rosy mama and her husband to see where to
move the goal post. Just mark my words, the goal post will be moved,
charge will be changed, the judge will give his ok and a new script
will be drawn for the judge like they did with the now-in-hell-Hacks
judge.
yesterday · Report
Man Bn live only for 2 years more. 2012 GE people of malaysia going to
make new political chapter. Therefore let Najib and his gange do
whatever they like. let the judge come 2mrow and pronounce that AG
have power to institute,conduct or discontinue any proccedings any
cases under Article145(3) of the Federal Constituition.malaysians are
not going to be suprice on his verdict let the AG use his power as his
own like and the judge also can use his inherent power to interprate
the law on his own whims and fancy
2 days ago · Report
Man I agree with Annoyed , The judge cannot make decesision in this
case bcz he need to ask our Najib,Gani Patail,Musa Hassan .
2 days ago · Report
Eugene The Tiger of Jelutong nails it perfectly! The prosecution is
now caught in a catch-22. If the trial is allowed to continue,
Malaysians will now know this trial is a sham and it would be equally
ridiculous for Anwar to "rape" Saiful - Saiful is younger, stronger
and could have outrunned the elderly Anwar who has a bad back. If the
trial is thrown out and the prosecution files for a new charge, they
will have lost their main witness as Saiful would have no credibility
left for lying in his testimony and in court. Karpal would tear apart
the prosecution's charge again just as he did in this one.
2 days ago · Report
Sarajun Hoda It says much about the state of our judiciary and the
quality of main players with such high pay and perks plus Tan Sri ship
and Datukship on fast track for these highly ill qualified legalites.
With such judiciary, AG office, MACC and the Police, pray only God can
save us Malaysians... If Najib does not clean up these agencies, he
should die of shame.
2 days ago · Report
Fair Roti John. The judge needs to consult his "ATAS' on what action
he should take . I will not surprised he will rule against the defence
team. This as many had said is a kangoroo court.
2 days ago · Report
Roti John The decision is tomorrow? Why? Waiting for Divine guidance?
2 days ago · Report
Alexander Yuan Xjin Kai To the "Directors" of Sodomy II:- Next time,
write a better script for your "main actor" as the current one (a.k.a
Saiful) is fluffing his lines. And one more thing - go for more
"directing" classes whenever you have the time. This "movie" is not a
"blockbuster".... it's more like a disaster.
2 days ago · Report
kgen Very simple. For the trial to proceed Saiful must now admit in
court that it was consensual. Otherwise the case should be thrown out
of court. But this is easier said than done as Saiful has sworn on the
Koran in a mosque that his anal virginity was taken without his
consent. This is a huge sin under Islam and a political timebomb for
BN in the Malay heartlands. You reap what you sow.
2 days ago · Report
E Teng An interesting thought - if Anwar is being charged for
consensual sodomy, shouldn't Saiful be charged too? If Saiful's
alleges that any sodomy was consensual, surely he must be charged with
the same offence!
2 days ago · Report
Singa Pura Pura [1] With respect to the learned Solicitor-General, s.
377B is not a lesser offence vis-a-vis s. 377C Penal Code. They are
entirely different offences embodied in distinctly separate sections,
wherein 'the guilty state of mind' constituting the requisite mental
element for one offence is completely unnecessary in the other.
Section 377C is the male-rape equivalent of s. 375 Penal Code; the
presence of proper consent would negative an offence under s. 375
thereof. Moreover, the maximum sentence prescribed under both ss. 377B
and 377C is the same, ie, 20 years' imprisonment. In contrast, it is
submitted, by way of examples, that s. 12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
is a lesser offence than say s. 39B(1)(a) thereof. As is s. 321 Penal
Code in relation to s. 322 thereof. The prosecution cannot charge a
man accused of "committing carnal intercourse against the order of
nature without consent" under s. 377B Penal Code. It is not a matter
of prerogative but one of propriety.
2 days ago · Report
Singa Pura Pura [2] The ingredients "… without the consent, or against
the will, of the other person, or by putting the other person in fear
of death or hurt to the person or any other person …" under s. 377C
Penal Code would have made it extremely onerous for the prosecution to
prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt in all the circumstances of
the case. The method in this prosecutorial (or persecutory) madness is
therefore not difficult to decipher. By charging the accused under s.
377B Penal Code, the prosecution would not even have to prove 'the
absence of consent' for an offence which both the complainant and the
prosecution allege was committed 'without consent' under the
circumstances and in the flavour of s. 377C thereof. The prosecution
ought not to be allowed to secure a conviction or otherwise gain an
unfair advantage through the sordid back-alleys of prejudice,
unreasonableness, and injustice.
2 days ago · Report
Keturunan Malaysia Of course it can be imagined...but to do so, one
needs to have an extraordinary very weird and distorted mind that can
stretch from the northern end of Pen. Malaysia right up to the very
edge where our great doctor wanted to build the crooked bridge and
Badawi had to pay the price for not playing balls..not his own of
course! (Pt.2/2)
2 days ago · Report
Keturunan Malaysia I have on more occasions than I can well remember
trying to hold on to men and women for various reasons from trying to
restrain them for doing something stupid or trying to get away after
doing something stupid. TRY and you will know how difficult it is even
if you are of the same age, height and built like the next person. I
remember on two occasions in far-away foreign lands I held on to pick
pockets that almost ran away with my friends' money to a tune of as
much as US10,000 cash...and the ensured struggles were fearfully
aggressive like life and death. Now try picturing a gone-well-over-the-
hill man like Anwar trying to pin down a tall and healthy young man
Saiful AGAINST THE LATTER's WILL, undressing him and get well-rewarded
with a right of way to burrow blissfully into the guy's ass-hole
without leaving any trace of entry...and equally blissfully deposit
semen (Pt.1/2)
2 days ago · Report
md. imraz bin muhammed ikhbal The mere fact that there are 2 separate
sections under the Law for the alleged crime i.e. 377(b) for
consensual & 377(c) for non-consensual, is compelling enough to
convince any legal court of dignified standing that they correspond to
different crimes albeit sodomy. The argument put forth by the
prosecutor that it is the prosecution's prerogative to prefer a lesser
charge is frivolous & holds no water as you cannot possibly convict a
person of a crime he did not commit even though the prosecution may
contend that he is guilty of a more serious crime. If one was caught
red-handed for daylight armed robbery & even if there were
incriminating evidence in support thereof, can he, based on such
evidence be legally convicted for Fraud or CBT even though less
serious than Armed Robbery? The glaring contradiction between the
charge & the testimony of the prime witness certainly warrant
impeachment. But then again, it is plain naive to place much faith in
courts privatised to UMNO & B
2 days ago · Report
md. imraz bin muhammed ikhbal The mere fact that there are 2 separate
sections under the Law for the alleged crime i.e. 377(b) for
consensual & 377(c) for non-consensual, is compelling enough to
convince any legal court of dignified standing that they correspond to
different crimes albeit sodomy. The argument put forth by the
prosecutor that it is the prosecution's prerogative to prefer a lesser
charge is frivolous & holds no water as you cannot possibly convict a
person of a crime he did not commit even though the prosecution may
contend that he is guilty of a more serious crime. If one was caught
red-handed for daylight armed robbery & even if there were
incriminating evidence in support thereof, can he, based on such
evidence be legally convicted for Fraud or CBT even though less
serious than Armed Robbery? The glaring contradiction between the
charge & the testimony of the prime witness certainly warrant
impeachment. But then again, it is plain naive to place much faith in
courts privatised to UMNO & B
2 days ago · Report
Ichigo Why the need to postpone when the answer is so obvious ? Saiful
told the court (without referring to his police statement) that DSAI
asked his consent politely if he could "F... him" although the choice
of word seems very unbecoming of coming from DSAI. Did he willingly
obliged? If yes, then that's consensual. Simple as that
2 days ago · Report
Lord I presume Saiful is now regretting as to why he volunteered to
take part in this wayang of sodomy II. He should now tell the court
that one police officer with the rank of SAC is the person who coached
him to speak in this lintang pukang way which took place in a hotel
room in KL. Then YB Karpal should call him to court as a prosecution
witness and crack his skull till he is able to see his own rotten
brains himself. The Solicitor General II is making the whole lot of
the prosecution look like a bunch of idiotic fools. The people will
only accept reasonable and factual arguments which is in accordance
with the law and in a court of law.
2 days ago · Report
l
