Talks meant to give clearer understanding of Anwar conviction, says Shafee

KUALA LUMPUR: Senior lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah says he gave talks to provide the public with a clear understanding of former Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's second sodomy conviction.

Muhammad Shafee, 63, said that he was invited to give the talks last year, and they were not his own initiative.

He added that there were people who wanted a better explanation.

"There were some who completely disagreed with the judgement, some agreed and some had no understanding but were getting a negative impression from the media.

"After all, the matter was already concluded and there was no further issue of subjudice and I took the stand to clarify the case and judgement," he testified in his defamation suit against senior lawyer Tommy Thomas, former Court of Appeal judge Tan Sri VC George and former Malaysian Bar president Christopher Leong.

Muhammade Shafee added that he never intended to condemn Anwar, a convicted prisoner who could not answer, and the explanation of the judgement was meant to clear the people’s doubts.

In his suit, Muhammad Shafie claimed that on Feb 28, last year Thomas, who was seconded by George, had published and submitted a motion for discussion at the Malaysian Bar AGM on March 14, relating to Muhammad Shafie’s conduct in Anwar's sodomy appeal in the Federal Court.

The lawyer said the Bar Council and Leong on March 9 had published the motion on the website of the Malaysian Bar titled, “Agenda and Motions for the 69th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar” that could be accessed by all members of the board.

The motion, among other things, concerned the behaviour of Muhammad Shafee in staging roadshows relating to Anwar’s sodomy case.

Muhammad Shafee claimed that following the publishing of the motion, the defendants had maliciously defamed him with intention to destroy his reputation and legal career.

He said the publication of the proposal, among other things, took to mean that he was an unethical and dishonest lawyer who did not have integrity, was repugnant and obnoxious, and had tarnished the legal profession.

The hearing continues Thursday.