KUALA LUMPUR: Questioning the credibility of the prosecution’s star witness, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, the defence in Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy trial wants his credibility to be reappraised by the court as it takes centre-stage in the case.
Anwar’s lead counsel Karpal Singh said it was obvious from the evidence that Mohd Saiful was “lying through his teeth” although the court found him a truthful witness at the close of the prosecution case.
He said it was the close of the defence case which the court must consider on whether the case against the accused (Anwar) was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
“It is submitted that the defence has cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case,” said Karpal.
He said this in his submissions at the end of the defence case of Anwar, 64, who is facing a charge of committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature on his former aide, Mohd Saiful, 26, at the Desa Damansara Condominium in Bukit Damansara between 3.10pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.
Karpal said, the evidence of defence witness, orthopaedic surgeon Dr Thomas Hoogland, had substantially demolished Mohd Saiful’s evidence with regard to the ability of the accused (Anwar) to perform the act of sodomy as described by Mohd Saiful.
He said Dr Hoogland, in his evidence, said it was unlikely that a man of Anwar’s age could have performed the sexual act as described by Mohd Saiful.
“It is interesting to note that SP1 (Mohd Saiful) under crossexamination stated that “Pada hari tersebut, beliau (Anwar) melakukannya dengan laju dan rakus (On that day, he (Anwar) commit ted the act fast and vigorously),” he said.
Karpal submitted, with Dr Hoogland’s evidence, Mohd Saiful’s evidence was therefore, on this score, suspect and incapable of bel ief and dest royed the substratum of the charge against Anwar.
He also said the evidence of the conduct of Mohd Saiful, both before and after the alleged sodomy, was unworthy of belief.
“It is difficult to believe that SP1 (Mohd Saiful) acted like a lamb obeying the accused’s instructions although having every opportunity to escape from the bedroom before the alleged sodomy.
He chose not to do so,” said Karpal.
Karpal further argued there was no evidence that the door to the bedroom was locked and that Mohd Saiful could have rushed out from the bedroom and the hall.
He (Mohd Saiful) could also have raised a hue and cry and sought the assistance of those in the opposite unit of the condominium and complained to the occupants.
“Instead, he (Mohd Saiful) says the accused (Anwar) invited him to the dining hall, an invitation which he accepted,” said the counsel.
Karpal also said Mohd Saiful’s credibility was further eroded as he (Mohd Saiful) delayed in making his (police) report which was done only two days after the alleged incident, and there was also no acceptable explanation for the delay.
He wants the court to adjourn its decision on Anwar’s sodomy case to enable Mohd Saiful to be recalled, and summon Deputy Public Prosecutor Farah Azlina Latif, a member of the prosecution team — who was alleged to have had an affair with Mohd Saiful — as a witness to deny the allegation under oath.
Citing several case laws, Karpal contended that Anwar’s statement from the dock when he was called to enter his defence, constituted as giving evidence.
The submissions before High Court Judge Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah continues today. — Bernama