PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal here ruled Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s statement from the dock in defence of his sodomy charge as a mere denial.
The court further held that Anwar’s bare denial did not amount to any doubt and a credible defence should answer the prosecution’s evidence against the accused.
“It is also imperative that the respondent (Anwar) explain his case,” said the Court of Appeal three-member panel of judges led by Justice Datuk Balia Yusof Wahi in the 85-page written judgement released yesterday.
The others were justices Datuk Aziah Ali and Datuk Mohd Zawawi Salleh.
On March 7, the Court of Appeal overturned a Jan 9, 2012 High Court decision which acquitted Anwar of sodomising his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, 26, at a Desa Damansara condominium unit in Bukit Damansara between 3.10pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.
The court had allowed the prosecution’s appeal and found Anwar guilty of the charge and sentenced him to five years jail.
In the judgment, the panel stated that for Anwar to succeed in his defence, it was incumbent upon him to adduce evidence to refute the allegations leveled against him.
However, in this case, Anwar had not even denied that he was at the scene of the crime at the material time and date as stated in the charge.
“He never disputed that his car was seen entering and leaving the condominium at the material time. He also did not dispute that he was seen entering the lift to the fifth floor of the condominium and later leaving the place,” said the three judges.
They were also of the view that, the trial judge in the instant appeal could quite properly wonder why the respondent (Anwar) had elected to make an unsworn statement.
The panel noted that it could not be because he (Anwar) had a conscientious objection to taking the oath because if he had, he could choose to affirm.
“Could it be that the respondent was reluctant to put his evidence to the test of cross-examination? If so, why? He had nothing to fear from unfair questions because he would be fully protected from this by his own counsel and by the court,” said the panel.
On the two expert defence witnesses (Dr David Wells and Dr Brian McDonald) brought in to rebut the prosecution’s expert witness, the court said they were mere “arm chair experts” and their evidence mere opinion, while the evidence of local chemists Dr Seah Lay Hong and Nor Aidora Saedon were factual and based on their own analysis of the samples.
The panel also agreed with the prosecution’s submission that the evidence from Dr Brian was to a great extent speculative and theoretical if not hypothetical, thus lacking in probative value.
The judges said Dr McDonald had also insinuated that the Chemistry Department of Malaysia was not accredited and that its accreditation had expired in 2005, however the evidence of Chemistry Department forensic division director, Lim Kong Boon had shown that the department was and is fully accredited.
On the issue of alibi, the judges held that Anwar’s failure to call any witnesses to support his defence had raised questions on the bona fides of his defence.
They said among the witnesses named in the notice of alibi were the respondent’s wife and his chief of staff.
“These witnesses in particular, would have been available and were at the respondent’s disposal had his alibi been genuine.” said the panel.
They also found that the High Court Judge had made a serious error when he doubted the integrity of the DNA samples based on the two expert witnesses called by the defence.
And finally, the panel viewed the finding of the trial judge as seriously flawed and therefore merited the intervention of the Court of Appeal. — Bernama