Anwar fails to set aside sodomy conviction

Bede Hong Bede Hong Updated 8 years ago · Published on 12 Mar 2018 3:50PM · 2 Comments

Jailed opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim has failed tos et aside his sodomy conviction after his application was rejected by the Kuala Lumpur High Court today. – The Malaysian Insight file pic, March 12, 2018.

ANWAR Ibrahim failed to set aside his sodomy conviction when his application was rejected by the Kuala Lumpur High Court today.

Justice Nik Hasmat Nik Mohamad rejected the premise of Pakatan Harapan de facto leader’s application, which was based on the grounds that the evidence against him was fraudulently obtained.

Nik Hasmat said it failed to meet the legal threshold to call for a fresh trial.

“It’s been three years since the case. I can’t help but feel that the plaintiff is using a civil procedure as a backdoor attempt to revisit the conviction,” she said in her judgement today.

The jailed opposition leader was convicted of sodomising his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari and sentenced to a five-year jail term in February 2015.

Anwar, speaking to reporters later, expressed disappointment, and said he had wanted to see justice done.

“I was just looking for one judge, one avenue, for them to have to courage to show that they respect the law and justice.

“Otherwise, wait for GE14,” he said, to which supporters shouted “Reformasi.”

The court awarded costs of RM,5000 to Anwar’s lawyers.

Anwar was applying to set aside his conviction under Section 44 of the Evidence Act, which provides that any party to a suit may show that any judgement, which has been proved by the adverse party, was delivered by a court not competent to deliver it or was obtained by fraud or collusion.

Nik Hasmat said arguments by Anwar’s lawyers that fraud was committed by the government were vague.

“It has to be actual fraud, it has to be specific. You cannot simply pluck fraud and throw it to the court,” she said.

In its affidavit and written submissions, the government had replied that the application was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process.

Nik Nazmat aso affirmed the government’s argument that Article 145 (3) of the federal constitution stated that the attorney-general, acting as public prosecutor, had the discretion to institute criminal proceedings in civil courts.

Anwar was represented by N. Surendran, while Awang Armadajaya Awang Mahmud appeared for the government.

Surendran said Anwar would file an appeal immediately with the Court of Appeal.

Anwar’s has a second appeal to set aside his conviction, pending in the Court of Appeal, in related to the allegation that RM9.5 million was paid to the prosecutor in Anwar’s sodomy trial, Muhammad Shafee Abdullah. – March 12, 2018.

Sign up or sign in here to comment.

Comments

  • Justice will not see day light in this country as long as the current administration rules and continues to rule. We know the executive controls everything under the Malaysia sun. Accept that and deal with it if change is not forthcoming.

    Posted 8 years ago by Conscience Moral · Reply

  • Mohd Saiful Bukhari met with Najib when he was DPM, days before Saiful claimed that he was sodomized. Najib said that he talked to Saiful about granting him a scholarship. Fishy isn't it? The court did not charge Anwar for raping Saiful. Saiful was young and Anwar could not possible force on him if the sexual action took place. So it was a consensual sex, if the evidence planted could show sexual activity took place. If sodomy is illegal, and if two parties had consensual sex, as Anwar was charged, why should Saiful get away scot free. So Saiful was sent to 'trap' Anwar. That is using the law to stop Anwar contesting in general election. That is not rule of law, it is rule by persecution. There were tens of thousands of people who looked for scholarship, and Najib was not the education minister, yet Najib chose to discuss with Saiful at the DPM residence. Najib was DPM and he had no authority to grant scholarship. If Najib did give Saiful scholarship, that was acting in excess of his authority, and is corruption, just like Anwar was charged, and spent years in jail fighting the court case. If Najib did not give Saiful the scholarship, and yet Najib claimed he did discuss, then he was doing something else which he needed an excuse to see Saiful. Was it planning to trap Anwar, or to plant evidence so that Anwar would be trapped in court case? We may know the answer after GE 14.

    Posted 8 years ago by Meng Kow Loh · Reply