The Anwar sodomy II judgment

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.