21.07.2000
Anwar has just made another legal history - he took over from his lawyers
to do
the summing up himself in the final submissions in his sodomy trial
that was
just concluded.
In a manner befitting the grand finale to these historical trials, Anwar
launched his salvo right at the root cause of this tragic episode.
He accused
Mahathir as the "supremo maestro"who conducted the orchestration of
fabricated
evidence and false charges. He identified Mahathir as the man
behind his cruel
persecution in the hands of the police and the prosecutors, in particular,
his
near fatal beating by the former Inspector General of Police.
And so, in one sweeping stroke, Anwar has transferred the focus of his
long
running sex trials back to where it should be. The real issue
is not whether
Anwar is guilty of corruption or sodomy. It is: MAHATHIR vs ANWAR:
Who is
right? Who is guilty?
To put us in proper perspective, we have to go back to that fateful
day in
September 1998 when Mahathir dropped the bombshell. He sacked
Anwar as the
Deputy Prime Minister and expelled him from UMNO two days later, after
pronouncing that Anwar was guilty of the heinous sexual crime of sodomy.
To pleas that Anwar's punishment should be delayed until he was proven
guilty,
Mahathir's answer was that he already had irrefutable proof of Anwar's
guilt.
Mahathir further pleaded to the Nation to be patient, promising that
Anwar would
be brought to open trial, during which evidences of Anwar's sexual
crimes would
be fully exposed to appease the Nation.
In a press conference televised to the whole world two days after Anwar's
arrest, Mahathir declared that he had "incontrovertible" proof of Anwar's
sodomy, and that he sacked Anwar not because of differences in politics
or
economics, but because Anwar, being a sodomite, was unfit to be the
Prime
Minister of a Muslim country. (Mahathir repeated the same pronouncement
in the
major capitals of the world during his frequent globetrotting).
Anwar was duly charged in November 1998 for corrupt practices for "ordering"the
police to procure letters from poison pen writers to deny sexual crimes
"committed" by Anwar for the purpose of escaping "criminal proceedings".
For the Prosecution to succeed in this trial, it must prove a) Anwar
had
committed the sexual crimes and b) he ordered a cover up of these crimes.
Half way through this "corruption" trial, it was apparent to all that
the case
of Anwar's sexual crime built up by the Prosecution had all but collapsed.
The
Prosecution promptly dropped the sexual charges and confined itself
to charging
Anwar for having interfered with police investigation. And the
Judge, on his
own volition and without prompting from any party, expunged Prosecution's
entire
evidence on Anwar's sexual crimes, so that the Prosecution would be
relieved of
the responsibility to prove such crimes.
And so, Mahathir's promised courtroom extravaganza of Anwar's sexual
crimes
ended in a whimper.
Not to be deterred by such fiasco, the Attorney General mounted another
attempt
to prove Anwar's sexual crime, this time charging Anwar for having
sodomised one
Azizan Abu Bakar one night in 1994.
Before and during this "sodomy" trial, the date of offence was shifted
from 1994
to 1992, and again from 1992 to one night between January and March
1993, the
Prosecution apparently having found the previous dates factually unsustainable.
Azizan subsequently testified that he never volunteered any date of
offence to
the police, meaning the police had made up these various dates.
Prosecution case was based solely on Azizan's testimony with no corroborating
witnesses and material evidence. Azizan was rebuked by the Judge
on many
occasions for giving conflicting answers, wavering and hesitating in
answering
the defending attorney.
Defence case was based mainly on alibi and on an alleged high-level
conspiracy
to topple Anwar.
Defence's alibi was largely unchallenged. As for conspiracy, Defence
has
produced witnesses to substantiate the motive, identify the individuals
and
describe the activities relating to this alleged conspiracy.
Some of these
touched directly on Prime Minister Mahathir. These evidences
were also largely
unchallenged.
An important development in this trial is Mahathir's resistance against
a
subpoena for him to appear as a witness, contrary to his previously
professed
willingness to appear in court. Defence claimed Mahathir could
provide vital
information, as the latter had declared Anwar innocent of the sexual
allegations
in these poison pen letters in August 1997, after receiving a Special
Branch
Report, which confirmed Anwar as a victim of political controversy.
Additionally, Azizan also had testified earlier that he had met Mahathir
in
connection with the poison pen letters.
Mahathir's objection to the subpoena was that he did not want to be
politically
exploited by Anwar by the former's appearance in court.
Most unfortunate for Mahathir, this explanation of his only reveals
his
hollowness vis-a-vis the Mahathir - Anwar tussle for the moral high
ground in
this Country. How is it possible for Anwar to gain any
political advantage by
a Mahathir court appearance, when the latter is supposedly armed with
"incontrovertible" evidence of Anwar's sodomy? Shouldn't Anwar
be the one who
would suffer disadvantage by a Mahathir appearance? Wouldn't
Mahathir's’s"incontrovertible" evidence in court have dealt Anwar a
fatal blow?
In fact, Prosecution should have called Mahathir in the first place
to appear as
a star witness to prop up Azizan's shaky evidence. Now that Prosecution
has
neglected to do so, and Defence has gallantly offered Mahathir the
chance, he
should have jumped at this last opportunity to appear in court to defend
his
honour (against Defence's sinister insinuations) and fulfill his promise
to the
Nation earlier that Anwar's sexual crimes would be fully exposed in
court in due
course
In stead, we see a Mahathir wriggling his way away from the courtroom,
filing
affidavit after affidavit (against the subpoena), and fighting all
the way from
the High Court to the Appeal Court to the Federal Court (Supreme Court),
just to
avoid a court appearance.
Is that the picture of a leader walking in the path of truth, confident
in his
righteousness in condemning and punishing his deputy? Or is it
more like a
reflection of guilt, fearful of being caught with the wrong foot?
IN RETROSPECT
Now that the two-year-old Anwar court saga is virtually coming to a
close, it is
useful to make a few reflections.
Does any one wonder how a stranger (equipped with a legal mind) to this
Country
would react when he is presented with the Anwar court cases for the
first time?
I bet he would consider these as the most bizarre cases he has ever
encountered.
He must be thinking that Malaysia must have just emerged from the medieval
ages,
unfamiliar with the rule of law of recent times. Or alternatively,
Malaysians
are sheep like creatures, meek and obedient, ever ready to accept whatever
dictates from the herdsman. Or else, how could he explain the
strange legal
phenomena exhibited by these cases?
In a nutshell, two disreputable individuals wrote two unsubstantiated
poison
letters to the prime minister, accusing the deputy prime minister of
sexual
misconduct and sodomy. The deputy prime minister (dpm) asked
the police to
obtain retraction letters from these two individuals. As a result,
the dpm was
charged for corrupt practices for directing the police to procure the
retraction
letters. During the trial, the dpm protested that he never committed
the alleged
sexual misconduct. But the judge ruled that issue as irrelevant, adding
that he
was not interested to know whether the dpm did or did not commit the
alleged
sexual misconduct. The judge also barred crucial defence witnesses
from giving
evidence. At the end, in spite of dubious and contradictory evidences
by the
prosecution witnesses, the judge pronounced his satisfaction that the
dpm did
direct the police to procure the retraction letters and sentenced the
dpm to 6
years jail.
In the second case, the dpm was charged for sodomising one of the two
disreputable individuals mentioned above. Prosecution case depended
completely
on the words of this disreputable individual. There was no corroborating
witnesses or material evidence whatsoever.
In spite of the utmost simplicity of the above 2 cases from the legal
point of
view, these cases have made waves and broken all records of our legal
history,
in terms of duration of trial, numbers of prosecutors and defending
lawyers,
national and international publicity, commotion and emotions and finally
political impact. In any democratic country, the above 2 cases
would not even
make it to the doorsteps of the courts, not to mention making legal
history.
But in Malaysia, they practically turned the Country upside down. What
kind of a
country are we living in? A mad, mad, mad,....world? Or a sick,
sick,
sick,....world?
That such transgression of justice and decency as represented by the
Anwar
trials should go unchallenged by the silent majority is a shameful
indictment on
the integrity of this Country. As for the large section of our
population who
still rejoice in Mahathir's chorus of "Malaysia Boleh', oblivious of
the naked
decadence of our democratic system, one wonders whether they will ever
be
awakened to the ugly truth that we have already sunk to depths unknown
in our 43
years of independence.
Kim Quek