WHAT THE JUDGES SAID . . .
On Saiful’s credibility
“In this case it takes a lot of courage for a young man like Saiful to make such a disparaging complaint against a well-known politician like Anwar. Knowing that such an allegation might taint him (Saiful), we cannot ignore the life-long negative effect such a serious allegation would have on him and his family even if the allegation were proven to be true.
The court says the minute details testified by Saiful gave his testimony the ring of truth, as, unless he had personally experienced the incident, he would not be able to relate the antecedent facts and the sexual act in such minute details.
“It must be borne in mind too that despite the lengthy cross-examination, Saiful withstood that gruelling session which the trial judge described as ‘sometimes bordering on harassment’.
“Saiful spoke of the previous encounters he had with Anwar, the unpleasant sensation of pain and the reason for bringing the KY Jelly. “He hid nothing. The trial judge found Saiful to be completely open and honest. The Court of Appeal agreed with this finding.
“It is an accepted fact that in sexual offences, a complainant is generally reluctant to lodge a complaint or report regarding such incidents for a number of reasons.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the findings of the trial judge. We have no reason to disagree with that finding.
On impeachment proceedings by the defence
The court ruled that Anwar’s lawyer had failed to comply with the correct procedure in applying for an impeachment proceeding against Saiful’s evidence.
On the DNA evidence
THE Federal Court dealt with how scientific evidence had proven that the DNA profile of Male Y can be linked to Anwar, thus corroborating Saiful’s allegation that he was sodomised by Anwar.
“Whether the anus was torn or bruised is not, in our view, an issue which could refute the fact that Saiful had been sodomised.
“According to medical witnesses, the absence of such injury could have been due to the lapse of time prior to seeing the doctors, no undue force having been applied and the use of lubricant. This explanation in our view is plausible and we accept it.
“One crucial point to note is that from the evidence of witnesses, if the DNA is completely degraded it means that no DNA profile could be obtained or developed. But it does not mean that when a DNA profile was obtained, no degradation had taken place.
“They emphasised that there might be some slight degradation, but the damage is not substantial enough to destroy the DNA entirely.
“It is incorrect and misleading to conclude that because of the degradation, the DNA profiling is rendered unreliable. It is thus our finding that degradation has no effect whatsoever on the DNA profiling in this case.
“Based on the above, we agree with the Court of Appeal that the trial judge had sufficiently evaluated the evidence before him in arriving at his finding that a prima facie case had been made out against Anwar, at the close of the prosecution’s case.
WHAT SAIFUL SAID . . .
Mohd Saiful Bukhari bin Azlan, the complainant testified that he started working as a volunteer with Anwar in early March of 2008. From the end of April 2008, Mohd Saiful then worked as Anwar’s personal assistant.
His duties, among others, were to arrange for meetings, to communicate with agents and Members of Parliament from Anwar’s party, to file confidential documents and to oversee Anwar’s personal handphone. He also assisted Anwar’s Chief of Staff, Ibrahim Yaacob, to prepare work schedules as instructed by Anwar.
On June 26, 2008, on Anwar’s instruction Mohd Saiful went to Unit 11-5-1, Desa Damansara Condominium, No.99, Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara, Kuala Lumpur.
Mohd Saiful took with him some documents to be delivered to Anwar. He left the office at about 1.45 pm, and drove to Desa Damansara Condominium. He arrived at Unit 11-5-1 at approximately 2.45pm and upon arrival, found the door not locked. He then entered the unit. He saw Anwar seated at the dining table.
Mohd Saiful then sat at the table facing the appellant and placed the documents on the table. They discussed work schedule and not long after that Anwar asked Mohd Saiful: “Can I f**k you today?”.
Mohd Saiful said initially he refused and when Anwar asked him why, Mohd Saiful answered that he did not wish to “do it” that day.
Anwar then instructed him in an angry tone to go into the master bedroom. Mohd Saiful followed the instruction.
In the bedroom, Anwar closed the curtain and switched off the light. He then directed Mohd Saiful to clean himself in the bathroom. Mohd Saiful then went into the bathroom and came out covered only with a towel.
Anwar was then standing at the lower right end corner of the bed, clad only in a white towel.
Mohd Saiful went to Anwar when he was told to do so and Anwar hugged him.
Further evidence was given in camera where Mohd Saiful described the carnal intercourse and how it was done with the aid of a lubricant known as “KY Jelly”.
Mohd Saiful also testified that Anwar ejaculated inside his anus. After the carnal intercourse, Mohd Saiful went into the bathroom and wiped himself with water. Anwar then invited him to have some refreshments with him. Twenty minutes later, Mohd Saiful left the condominium.
ATTEMPT TO RESIGN
On 27.6.2008, Mohd Saiful sent an e-mail to Anwar conveying his wish to resign. The reasons he gave were that he was undisciplined, always late to the office and also felt the pressure as he was given a room in the new office over those who were more qualified.
However, in his testimony Mohd Saiful said the real reason for his resignation was that he did not wish to be sodomised by Anwar again.
At 1pm on June 26, 2008, Mohd Saiful, accompanied by his uncle Tuah Mohd Ali, went to Tawakal Hospital at Jalan Pahang but failed to see any doctor as it was a half-working day.
Mohd Saiful then proceeded to Pusrawi (a private hospital) at Jalan Tun Razak where he met Dr. Than Aung @ Muhamed Osman Abdul Hamid. Mohd Saiful informed the doctor that he had stomachache and felt pain in his anus.
The doctor examined him and while he was inserting something into Mohd Saiful’s anus, Mohd Saiful told him he had been sodomised and needed an examination. Upon hearing this, the doctor immediately stopped the examination and told Mohd Saiful that Pusrawi did not have the facility for forensic examination.
Mohd Saiful was also informed by the doctor that any medical report from a private hospital could not be used as evidence in court. Mohd Saiful was then directed to go to a government hospital and suggested Hospital Kuala Lumpur.
After being examined at the KL hospital, Mohd Saiful lodged a police report.
WHAT ANWAR SAID . . .
AT the end of the prosecution’s case, upon a maximum evaluation of the prosecution’s case, the trial judge in the High Court held that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against Anwar. Accordingly, Anwar was called upon to enter his defence.
Anwar in his unsworn statement from the dock advanced the theory of a political conspiracy to end his political career by putting him behind bars.
Anwar’s statement, among others, stated that Mohd Saiful had all the opportunity to flee, that he did not immediately seek medical attention or lodge a police report and that he had connection with the prime minister and police.
He also stated that Mohd Saiful could have resisted him as he is younger and physically bigger than Anwar. Furthermore, Anwar said he was old and weak with a history of back injury and had undergone a major surgery.
Anwar said he also did not hold any position of power.
He said the medical evidence did not support Mohd Saiful’s complaint. He added that Mohd Saiful’s conduct did not support his claim of being sodomised as he had had a drink and a friendly conversation with Anwar immediately after the alleged incident and attended PKR’s function and a meeting of Anwar’s club the next day.
Did you find this article insightful?