Rosmah has no time to entertain 'wild allegations' ALL SET JUDGES IN PLACE the untouchable beautifully beastifull rosamah sent Anwar Ibrahim to jail

will the untouchable beautifully beastifull rosamah sent Anwar Ibrahim to jail?

Mansor is unperturbed by the many wild allegations hurled against her by hostile parties.

RELATED ARTICLE

beautifully beastifull rosamah the director of sodomy2,so the begining of the persecution of the malaysian opposition leader

If you think this is just Anwar’s problem, then, think again because if the justice system in Malaysia is damaged beyond repair, then, all Malaysians could be confronted with situations like Kugan, Anwar and a whole host of other abusive and life threatening occasions experienced by the less fortunate.

HALL OF SHAME

Mohd Eusoff Chin DISGRACE#01 Mohd Eusoff Chin, Chief Justice of Malaysia from 1994 – 2000, subjected himself to the worst kind of corruption, by ‘tagging’ along lawyer V.K. Lingam on a family vacation in New Zealand in 1994. He subsequently lied to the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Lingam tape scandal.

S. Augustine Paul DISGRACE#02 S. Augustine Paul, currently Federal Court judge, subjected himself to be a political whore when in 1998, while being a Kuala Lumpur high court judge, participated in the political conspiracy orchestrated by then prime minister Mahathir Mohamad. He put through a show trial of then-deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim and subsequently convicted the latter of sodomy and corruption. Among his notorieties, he allowed the prosecution to change the time of offence three times when Anwar’s lawyers provided the alibi.

Ahmad Fairuz bin Sheikh Abdul Halim DISGRACE#03 Ahmad Fairuz bin Sheikh Abdul Halim, Chief Justice of Malaysia from 2003 to 2007, was taped in the ‘judicial fixing’ scandal where he was heard in conversation with lawyer V.K. Lingam, on how to get Fairuz to be elevated as chief justice of Malaysia. He subsequently lied to the Royal Commission of Inquiry that he was not the other party in the said telephone conversation.

Ridwan bin Ibrahim DISGRACE#04 Ridwan bin Ibrahim, currently judicial commissioner of Ipoh high court, participated in the aftermath of Perak state coup by Najib Tun Razak. He first created the stir when he infamously ruled that five lawyers appointed by Perak State Speaker V. Sivakumar had no locus standi to represent Sivakumar. The astonishing ruling forced Sivakumar to be unrepresented effectively, as his ruling also stated that Sivakumar can only be represented by the state legal advisor, who has been shown to be colluding with the illegal menteri besar Zambry.

Ramly bin Hj Ali DISGRACE#05 Ramly bin Hj Ali, currently a judge at the Court of Appeal, took side on the Perak MB vs. MB on May 12, 2009 when he alone heard the appeal from BN menteri besar Zambry and granted him stay of execution on the High Court ruling, which declared Nizar as the legitimate menteri besar. Ramly’s hearing the appeal alone was a serious departure from the norm of the Court of Appeal, which hears cases in panel of at least three judges.

Balia Yusof bin Haji Wahi DISGRACE#06 Balia Yusof bin Haji Wahi, currently a judge at Kuala Lumpur high court, dismissed on Apr 1, 2009, Perak state assembly speaker V. Sivakumar’s application to strike out summons by brought by the three independent assemblymen, seeking a declaration that Sivakumar’s order to declare their assembly seats vacant was illegal. Balia Yusof’s decision is a stark violation of the very fundamental of separations of powers, where proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State cannot be intervened by the court.

Alauddin bin Mohd. Sheriff DISGRACE#07 Alauddin bin Mohd. Sheriff, currently president of the Court of Appeal, ruled on Apr 16, 2009 that Perak Assembly Speaker V Sivakumar does not have the power to suspend Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abd Kadir and six state executive council members from attending the assembly. It is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution which says,”The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”.

Arifin bin Zakaria DISGRACE#08 Arifin bin Zakaria, currently Chief Judge of Malaya, ruled on Apr 16, 2009 that Perak Assembly Speaker V Sivakumar does not have the power to suspend Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abd Kadir and six state executive council members from attending the assembly. It is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution which says,”The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”.

Zulkefli bin Ahmad Makinudin DISGRACE#09 Zulkefli bin Ahmad Makinudin, currently Federal Court judge, ruled on Apr 16, 2009 that Perak Assembly Speaker V Sivakumar does not have the power to suspend Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abd Kadir and six state executive council members from attending the assembly. It is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution which says,”The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”.

Nik Hashim Nik Ab. Rahman DISGRACE#10 Nik Hashim Nik Ab. Rahman, former Federal Court judge, ruled on Apr 16, 2009 that Perak Assembly Speaker V Sivakumar does not have the power to suspend Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abd Kadir and six state executive council members from attending the assembly. It is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution which says,”The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”.

Mohd Zaki bin Md. Yasin DISGRACE#11 Mohd Zaki bin Md. Yasin, currently judge at Shah Alam High Court, presided the mock trial of Altantuya murder case, which eventually acquitted Abdul Razak Baginda, a close associate of then deputy prime minister Najib Tun Razak,

On February 10, the Supreme Court threw out yet another petition seeking to reinstate L K Advani as an accused in the trial of the conspiracy to demolish Babri Masjid. This is despite a host of circumstances pointing to the probability of Advani, NDA's prime ministerial candidate in the upcoming election, being involved in the conspiracy. Not the least of which was his notorious rath yatra in the run-up to the demolition. And the testimony of the IPS officer in charge of his security, Anju Gupta, stating that his speech on the spot minutes before the demolition had added fuel to the fire.

On February 13, in the first of the Nithari serial killing cases to be decided, a trial court pronounced death sentence on Moninder Singh Pandher for a murder that took place when he was far away in Australia. And for the murder of a girl who he did not even know. As the prosecution admitted, there was no evidence to suggest that it was at Pandher's instance that his servant Surender Koli had raped and killed 14-year-old Rimpa Haldar, the victim who lived in a slum near his house. Yet, Pandher was held to be a conspirator mainly because his sexual profligacy was found to have brought out depravity in his servant.

The two interpretations of criminal conspiracy could not have been more different: ultra liberal in the case of Advani and stretched in the case of Pandher. Neither interpretation seems justified in the given facts and circumstances. Both the interpretations raise questions about the rigor and detachment with which the judiciary at all levels performs its job.

We just don't seem to get it. The normal standards of accountability don't apply to judges. We are unable to grasp their argument that, much as it is desirable in other institutions, transparency in the judiciary will compromise its independence, a larger constitutional value. Hence, we persist with the folly of expecting judges to be swept away by the wave of transparency triggered by RTI.

This is evident from the two latest attacks on judges on July 17. First, this incorrigible sceptic, Prashant Bhushan, mobilised a statement from 25 eminent citizens denouncing a proposed Bill, which prohibits the declarations of assets made by judges to their respective chiefs from being made public. The statement fails to appreciate Law Minister Veerappa Moily's sensitivity in coming up with a draft that reflects a consensus among judges. As if that were not bad enough, the statement is cheeky enough to suggest that, following the example of their American counterparts, our Lordships too should be transparent about their assets so that we could point out any "unusual accretion" or "false declaration".

But it is not just civil society that is being irreverent to judges. For, the same day, just before shutting for the weekend, the Central Information Commission (CIC) released an order where it repeated its folly of trying to bring the Chief Justice of India under the ambit of RTI. It once again demolished the CJI's position that he need not disclose any information lying in his custody as he was independent and distinct from the Supreme Court, which is a public authority under RTI.

It may be recalled that when CJI K G Balakrishnan had first taken this view about a year ago, it was very much in the context of declarations of assets. Since those declarations were in his custody, the CJI held then that the Supreme Court registry would not entertain any RTI queries concerning them. Yet, in its latest order in another case, the CIC defied the CJI saying, "The institution and its head cannot be two distinct Public Authorities. They are one and the same. Information, therefore, available with the Chief Justice of India must be deemed to be available with the Supreme Court of India."

Like us, the CIC too doesn't seem to get it. The general logic doesn't apply to judges. When others take refuge in opacity, we are justified in suspecting that they are hiding corruption. But when judges wrap themselves in a veil of secrecy, we have to take it that they are actually doing so for our good, so that they are not distracted by allegations of corruption against themselves.

One way of coming to terms with this distinction is to re-adopt the outdated notion that king could do no wrong. Going by his logic, Justice Balakrishnan does seem to suggest some such blanket immunity to judges. If some judge has made an unusual accretion to his assets or has made a false declaration of them, it should be no cause for concern to us, the consumers of justice. It's time we realised that judges have their inscrutable reasons. We should just be grateful to them for whatever justice they dispense to us, in their magnanimity and in their good time. Don't bring the notions of accountability and transparency into this one-of-a-kind relationship.

given for objections.

New chapter in PKFZ saga

IN THE many years of covering the

magistrates’ and sessions courts, the

sharp-eyed journalist never misses a

thing. When the poor man is charged,

he’ll have an entourage of friends and

family who come in motorcycles or

those who use public transport. When

VIPs and titled ones are charged, there’s

always a convoy of luxury cars. Yesterday,

the road leading to the courthouse

in Klang was lined with Protons and

Peroduas. Even the “humble” Lexus, a

familiar sight in proceedings elsewhere,

was missing. So were the Beamers, the

Mercs, the Porsches and the odd Aston

Martin. Perhaps, it was in Singapore for

its quarterly oil change and service.

Another observation that journalists

always make has got to do with the treatment

of the accused, even before they

are formally charged. Those about to be

charged with petty theft are brought into

the dock in cuffs via a fl ight of stairs from

the police lock-up below. In some cases,

they get down direct from the Black

Maria to the dock, most of the time in

pairs. Even after they are charged and a

trial date is set, they are sent from the

dock back to the lock-up while their bail

papers are processed. In between, the

mata-mata on duty admonish anyone

who seeks to speak with the accused.

“Tak boleh cakap! Bila dapat jamin, baru

boleh cakap” is often-heard cry.

Such scenes were non-existent in

the otherwise sedate proceedings when

Phang Oi Choo @ Phang Ai Tu, 63, and

two others were charged at the sessions

court in Klang yesterday. “Who’s that?”

many would want to ask. But to those

who have been following the saga of the

Port Klang Authority and the Port Klang

Free Zone (PKFZ), it may ring a bell.

OC Phang, the former general manager

of PKA also goes by these names,

according to the charge sheets. The

three charges of criminal breach of trust

involving about RM263 million were read

out in just over a minute. The seats reserved

for the media were fully taken up,

forcing journalists in the public gallery

to share benches with some past and

present PKA staff who had come to witness

what one described as a “historic”

occasion.

Now that formal charges have been

preferred, many will rejoice that this

newspaper’s fi ve-year “affair” with the

PKFZ will come to an end. They will cite

rules of sub judice fearing those who put

pen to paper on an issue already in court

will end up behind bars for contempt.

Really?

Just because three people have been

charged on offences related to the PKFZ,

it does not mean that it’s the end of the

story. On the contrary, just as the Attorney-

General told a press conference

in Putrajaya, “it’s just the beginning”

because there’s so much more that has

yet to materialise. The reams of paper

that contained reports produced by

four separate committees and which

cost taxpayers several millions cannot

be written off by just charging three

people.

There are many other major actors

– perhaps bigger fi sh – who have been

lurking in the shadows believing their silhouettes

will never be recognised. There

are others who believe their wealth will

help them and there are also those who

think their “connections” and “cables”

will beam them up out of trouble.

Not exactly. The voice of the citizens

of this country who will collectively be

out of pocket by more than RM12 billion

with little to show have been heard. The

message is loud and clear – no nonsense

will be brooked. And even the shadows

on the wall and the big fi sh in the ocean

must be shattered as

the sound reverberates

in their respective surroundings.

Comment

by R. Nadeswaran

Once the justice system is irreparably damaged, then, the darker side of jealousy or opportunists will creep beyond the less fortunate onto other innocent parties like you and me. This will be because if the institutions of the nation are able to manipulate our country’s democratic rights without any consequences, then, our enemies or disenchanted acquaintances will be able to do an “Anwar” or “Kugan” on you if they so choose and can afford it or have good contact to execute it!

Nobody will be safe if we do not stand up and voice out our opposition to gross manipulation of our democratic system underpinned by our pillars of democracy. The politicians are very sensitive to public opinions and when the public overwhelmingly demands that they stop destroying our democracy, they will have no choice but to follow suit because every citizen holds the power to send them to oblivion through the ballot boxes.

Make use of your voice and your vote!

Charge Saiful for making a false report and causing all the trouble. Send him to jail to share with perverts so that he can fulfill his dream TIME: Circa 2006 LOCATION: THE UNITED STATESof TANAH MELAYU

Filed under: Uncategorized — taxi2driver @ 3:02 pm Edit This

Rate This

The Curtains are raised and we see a darkened stage. Lights fade in. The scene begins in “THE WAR ROOM” a shadowy enclave hidden deep in the recesses of the nation’s Pentagon complex. A cool, chic black wooden conference table (Looks at the audience right before he says – ), made in Japan, sits in the middle of the football shaped room replete with a highly advanced, 360 degree, virtual reality digital map of the World adorning all sides of the room. A dimly lit light, (Looks at the audience), made in Korea hangs from the ceiling creating a dark, shadowy “war room-esque” atmosphere. There is also a mechanical horsie (Looks at the audience), Made in Mexico, located in the “play” corner. This notorious room is used by the nation’s political dignitaries only when discussing the most urgent, pressing matters of national security.

discussing the most urgent, pressing matters of national security.

10 years ago it was Mahathir-Anwar saga, and now it is Najib-Anwar the main actors. Lets look back 10 years ago. Before Anwar was sent to prison, TDM went a way for more than 2 months, and DSAI was the acting PM. Then the financial crisis hit us. One thing lead to another, TDM made a 180 degree turn, DSAI was fired, and the rest is history.

DSAI was not the first to go against TDM. Musa and Tengku Razaleigh did that in the 80s. They were not sent to prison. But why TDM wanted to “KILL” DSAI? What really happened back then? Why each time TDM opened his mouth, BSKL took a bitting? But each time DSAI said something, BSKL gained? What really happened back then? And then Al-Gore pulled a stunt when he came to Malaysia for the APEC dinner. To much unanswered questions, and now, we are saying DSAI is the right person for our next PM? Come on guys, lets get back to basic… WHY TDM wanted to “KILL” DSAI?

In a CIVILIZED society where the rule of law prevails the State Prosecution will not proceed with any charges without evidence knowing full well the judge will throw out the case. Can Malaysia show the world it is civilized and that the rule of law prevails here?

The news media reported that the AG already had a medical examination and CCTV footage for the trial. All it takes is another Paul Augustine and a semblance of (manufactured) “evidence”. It would be a forgone conclusion.

We have seen enough in the last few years and right up to the last few weeks to not expect any qualms or decency from Najis and his cohorts. Mahathir never bothered about world opinion, basic human decency or the rakyat’s feelings and Najis would similarly not be perturbed.

I would be pleasantly surprised if the DSAI’s striking off action was granted or the case against DSAI withdrawn for lack of evidence.

Yes, drop the charges. Charge Saiful instead for making a false report and causing all the trouble. Send him to jail to share with perverts so that he can fulfill his dream of being a sodomy victim.

To me the Government always think

They are the almighty,

The rakyat is nobody,

The police are their boot-lick boys

And so is the judiciary,

Water cannons to fan off the rakyat’s fury,

The rakyat most of whom they want to bury,

So that UMNO can survive eternally

The Najis will not let the sodomy matter go! They will create more lies, fabricate evidence and get the corrupt judges to convict Anwar. Anwar, like many others in the opposition will be silenced. The UMNO goons has the power and resources at their disposal to do just that. Anwar will not stand a chance. As long as UMNO is in power the rakyat will be crushed. There is no justice in Malaysia until the UMNO goons are toppled.

Writer: “How about dropping the charges against DSAI now that there is evidence that Saifool was never buggered?”

Najib: “Hello…since we can misinterpret the constitution, we can also misinterpret the [beep] hospital report!”

Writer: “Isn’t that illegal and a miscarriage of justice?”

Najib: “Who said anything about a [beep] fair trial?”

Writer: “What about the wasted expenses and court time?”

Najib: “We are rich! In fact we are so stinking rich that a million Ringgit is but spare change.”

Writer: “But we are talking about the country’s money.”

Najib: “So what’s the [beep] bloody difference? You born yesterday?”

Writer: “This means that you are proceeding even when evidence shows otherwise.”

Najib: “What evidence? You mean that bloody [beep] report?” The Health minister has just been ordered to eat that bloody [beep] report. We are going to do another report, comprendo?”

Writer: “Isn’t this fabrication of evidence illegal?”

Najib: “Not the first time and won’t be the last time. What’s your [beep] problem?”

we can make some money." I got very upset. Then he said, "Relax. Why don’t you say that you brought some girls and boys for him."

Fernando: Did you provide limousine services to Dato’ Seri Anwar?

Jamal: Yes, every time he visited Washington DC.

Fernando: Did you yourself drive these VIP’s around?

Jamal: Yes.

Fernando: In September 1998 did you go to the Malaysian Embassy in Washington?

Jamal: Yes, I did.

Fernando: Did you meet a Malaysian diplomat by the name of Mustapha Ong?

Jamal: Yes.

Fernando: During that meeting what transpired?

Jamal: He asked me to go to New York for business.

Fernando: When?

Jamal: The following day, at 6.00 am.

Fernando: In your limousine?

Jamal: No, in my private car, a Cadillac.

Fernando: What transpired during the journey?

Jamal: We drove off and just before the Delaware Bridge, he asked me if Dato’ Seri Anwar had made any sexual passes at me. I told him, "You must be joking!" Then he said, "You can make some money."

He told me, "If you can say that he made sexual advances at you, we can make some money." I got very upset. Then he said, "Relax. Why don’t you say that you brought some girls and boys for him."

I said, "Look here Mr Ong, leave me alone; I don’t care about Malaysia, I don’t care about nobody right now. We are going to New York for business. Let’s finish the business and I don’t want to hear the subject no more!"

When we drove on New York, he tried to convince me further and in the meantime I was thinking to myself, do I know two Anwar Ibrahim? He (Ong) told me, "There is a videotape in Malaysia everybody by now knows Anwar Ibrahim from the videotape; why don’t you say so."

I said if you have a videotape, why the heck do you want me for?" He replied, "So that the Americans will know too!

When we arrived in New York, I dropped him off at a diplomat’s apartment. I think it was on the 13th street, East Side. The Malaysian diplomat came down holding a very small booklet and passed it on to Mustapha Ong and they were talking in Malay. I did not understand them. Ong put his hand on my shoulder, trying to convince me to spend the night there. I refused. I wanted to go back to Washington. Mustapha showed me the booklet and asked, "Why dont’t you sign this and we can make up to US$ 200,000. Don’t be crazy."

I said: "You are looking at the most crazy man in the world. That’s me." And I told him: "You change the name from Jamal to Mustapha Ong and say that Anwar Ibrahim made sexual passes ... made love to you. Say anything and you make the money!" I then said, "Have a good day!"

I left and went back to Washington DC ... straight. Then I went to see the Malaysian Ambassador, one Dato’ Dali.

I told Dato’ Dali what transpired during the journey. He was very upset. He said, "Jamal, I assure you I have nothing to do with it. The Embassy has nothing to do with it." And he was very upset; I could see the fire on his face. He said, "You should have slapped him on the face." I said, "I should have done that."

He told me to forget the whole thing. Three months passed and the whole thing kept coming to my mind. I wanted to get if off my chest. I went to see one Sheikh Thahar, a friend of Dato’ Seri Anwar.

He is the president of an Islamic University in Northern Virginia. Leaders from all over the world go to see him. He is a friend of Faruqi (a world-reknown Islamic scholar). I made three attempts to see him but was not successful. Then I made a phone call. I told him I wanted to see him. He said, "What for." I told him, with respect to Dato’ Seri Anwar. "How fast can you come?" he said.

Subsequently I drove down from Washington and met him at 2 pm. I told him what happened. He told me, "Why don’t you see the Malaysian Ambassador." I told him I had seen him (the Ambassador) three months previously. He said, "I will get in touch with you tomorrow". The next day, he phoned me and asked me if it was okay with me, I could make an affidavit before a lawyer about what happened.

Then I said to him, "What you want me to do, I will gladly do." I went with his son to see a lawyer and told the lawyer what happened and he wrote it down. The lawyer asked me if I was prepared to take a lie-detector test. I said, "If you want me to take a lie-detector test, I take a lie-detector test, if you want to put me to sleep I’ll go to sleep."

Fernando: Did you sign an affidavit?

Jamal: Yes. Then I left.

Fernando: Then what happened?

Jamal: I think Sheikh Thahar got in touch with somebody in Malaysia subsequently. Then Sheikh Thahar asked me, "Are you willing to go to Malaysia if you can." I said, " I am willing, if I can." Sheikh Thahar thought I was afraid. I said, " I am not afraid of anyone. I have fear only for God."

Fernando: Did Sheikh Thahar say anything about religion?

Jamal: He said, "If you shut out the truth, you are the devil’s brother!"

Fernando: Did Dato’ Seri Anwar make any passes at you or sodomise you at any time?

Jamal: No sir, he did not, he never did and never will!

Fernando: So this man wanted you to fabricate this evidence, did he not?

Jamal: I think so.

Fernando: On the way to New York from Washington, did Ong ask you to meet anybody or propose to meet anybody?

Jamal: Yes, he did.

Fernando: What did he say to you?

Jamal: He asked me to meet somebody from Abdullah Badawi’s staff so that I can collect the money but I refused.

Fernando: Why did he want you to see somebody from Abdullah Badawi’s staff?

Jamal: I understood, by that, if I say what they wanted me to say, I will get the money.

Fernando then told the court that Anwar was placed in a most unusual situation where the defence had to prove his innocence instead of the prosecution having to prove his guilt.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The burden of proof is on the prosecution but was shifted to the defence instead

An accused person is not required to prove his innocence. Instead, his accusers have to prove his guilt. In Anwar Ibrahim’s case, however, he was placed in an unenviable position of having to prove his innocence.

Anwar was charged for ‘committing sodomy one night, at 7.45pm, between 1 January 1993 and 31 March 1993’. Even with such a wide and vague charge, Anwar still managed to provide alibis for all those 90 days except one.

Yet, the judge still insisted that Anwar had not established his alibi. But the judge was not able to say which one of those 90 days Anwar’s alibi had not been established.

“All an accused person has to do is to create reasonable doubt,” said Christopher Fernando. “He does not have to prove anything or establish his defence beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“He is not required to prove anything conclusively with respect to his defence of alibi. But the judge held he had to and the he had not proved it 'conclusively'.”

“Conclusive proof is a standard even higher than beyond reasonable doubt.”

Fernando then told the court that Anwar was placed in a most unusual situation where the defence had to prove his innocence instead of the prosecution having to prove his guilt.

“This is most unusual; alien to the law,” argued Fernando

“All Dato’ Seri Anwar had to do was to raise reasonable doubt.”

“Between 4 February and 31 March 1993, Dato’ Seri Anwar managed to establish his alibi, except for 19 February 1993, said the judge.”

“There was no rebuttal at all by the prosecution to counter Dato’ Seri Anwar’s alibi.”

“The prosecution failed to observe this very basic principle of law.”

“Dato’ Seri Anwar had to prove he was not in the Tivoli Villa in the 90 days between 1 January and 31 March 1993.”

“Instead, it should have been the prosecution’s task to prove that he was there.”

The burden of proof was on the prosecution, argued Fernando. But in Anwar’s case it was the other way around.

“In spite of the monumental task to prove Dato’ Seri Anwar was not there (Tivoli Villa) the defence still managed to do so.”

“Yet the judge still insisted the defence did not establish his alibi.”

“But the judge did not say which one day over the 90 days the alibi was not established.”

“From 1 January 1993 to 3 February 1993 the apartment was under renovation.”

“So, from 4 February 1993 onwards, the alibi needs to be proven, and it was proven.”

“Witnesses were brought to testify and documents submitted to support the alibi.”

“The judge’s mind was cluttered. He was very confused and could not see the wood for the trees.”

“Tivoli Villa was not occupied. It had no furniture and was under renovation and the prosecution never rebutted this alibi.”

“The prosecution said Sukma had free access to the apartment but this was never proven.”

Azizan Abu Bakar had testified that he had been sodomised in the Tivoli Villa and that the act had taken place on a bed in a fully-furnished apartment, complete with carpets and all. He further testified that the act had taken place prior to 1993.

The defence, in turn, managed to prove that the apartment was under renovation from 1 January 1993 to 3 February 1993, and that from 4 February 1993 to 31 March 1993 Anwar was never in the apartment.

“The judge tried to buttress the evidence. He was trying to prop up a case that was so weak and unconvincing.”

“He said Azizan’s evidence is as strong as the Rock of Gibraltar.”

“Preposterous is too mild a word to use.”

“No judge in the history of this nation has gone this far to build up the credibility of a witness such as this – a witness who has no credibility whatsoever.”

Fernando explained that if there is any benefit of the doubt, it should have been given to the accused, not the prosecution. Instead, it was the opposite in Dato’ Seri Anwar’s case.

“This is a basic fundamental principle of law.”

“Azizan should have been impeached. This is not difficult as clearly he lied.”

“If Azizan had been impeached, the hearing would have ended then and there as the entire trial hinged on Azizan’s testimony.”

Shafee Abdullah: Fixing Anwar Ibrahim and Finishing Off Raja Petra

SHAFEE ABDULLAH: FIXING ANWAR IBRAHIM

In this special police operations centre in Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s law firm is a whiteboard and on this whiteboard are two names: Anwar Ibrahim and Raja Petra Kamarudin. Below these two names are all sorts of notes, scribblings and etchings.

Very troubling reports have been published, which reveal the existence of a medical report of an examination done by a doctor on Mohd Saiful Bukhari bin Azlan a few hours before Saiful lodged a police report that he had been sodomised. The medical report apparently shows that there is no evidence that he had been sodomised by anyone.

Such reports raise some very serious questions that require immediate answers:

(1) Are the police in possession of such a medical report?

(2) Was the doctor concerned interviewed by the police and was he detained for any length of time?

(3) Is the doctor concerned facing any form of intimidation and, if so, by whom?

(4) Is there a medical report by another doctor that either confirms or contradicts the first medical report?

(5) If it is true that the medical report exists showing a lack of prima facie evidence, what then could have been the justification for the vigorous actions taken against Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as well as the public call by the authorities for his DNA sample?

The answers to these questions are of paramount importance, as they bring into focus the integrity of our law enforcement system.

These latest disclosures regarding the investigations into the sodomy allegations are not the only ones to raise questions that need answering. There is, for example, also the issue of P. Balasubramaniam’s abrupt “disappearance” that has yet to be satisfactorily explained. No one can deny that the circumstances of his first and second statutory declarations are highly unusual. All these show a pattern of events that cause much disquiet to right-thinking members of the public.

The Malaysian people are deeply troubled. A country that truly believes in the rule of law should not be faced with so many disturbing developments and unanswered questions.

The credibility of the Malaysian justice system as a whole is therefore at stake. The integrity of professionals, be they doctors or lawyers, must never be interfered with. The public must be left in no doubt that the criminal justice system in this country will not be misused or abused. There must be nothing less than an open and thorough investigation into these cases. This calls for the courage and professionalism of all those involved to do the right thing no matter the consequences. And those who have shown such courage and integrity must know that they live in a country where it is safe to do so.

Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan

President

Malaysian Bar

*************************************************

What Ambiga said in her press statement above is certainly true and she has cause for concern. But she would be even more concerned if she knows what we know about this whole matter.

A special police operations centre was set up some time ago to coordinate all activities related to the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy crisis. No, the special police operations centre was not set up AFTER the alleged sodomy act took place on 26 June 2008. It was set up way before 26 June 2008.

Why the need to set up a special police operations centre BEFORE the date of the alleged sodomy act? Are they clairvoyant and did they peep into their crystal ball and ‘see’ the crime happen before it actually happened? Was the special police operations centre set up so that they could solve the crime? Or was the special police operations centre set up BEFORE the date of the ‘crime’ so that they could invent the so-called crime?

Yes, questions and yet more questions. But this is not yet the icing on the cake. The icing on the cake is that this special police operations centre is not located in the police headquarters. It is located in the meeting room of the office of prominent Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah who possesses a notorious reputation for fixing cases such as those involving the people implicated in murdering Altantuya Shaariibuu or those alleged to have pinched the bottoms of cigar girls in the Havana Club in Kuala Lumpur.

Name me any questionable case and you will find the hand of Shafee Abdullah behind that case. And this same person is coordinating the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy allegation from the meeting room of his law office in Kenny Hills.

There are four police officers headed by an officer name Aziz who are based in this special police operations centre in the meeting room of Shafee Abdullah’s law firm. But why are they based in an Umno lawyer’s office instead of in the police headquarters? Is this an official police operation or is this a rogue operation? Yes, we have watched many Hollywood movies about the CIA’s Dirty Tricks Department. Have Shafee Abdullah and the Royal Malaysian Police also seen the same movie? It appears so because the special police operations centre in Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s law firm looks like a plot out of these movies.

In this special police operations centre in Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s law firm is a whiteboard and on this whiteboard are two names: Anwar Ibrahim and Raja Petra Kamarudin. Below these two names are all sorts of notes, scribblings and etchings. There are also charts and strategies on how both Anwar Ibrahim and Raja Petra Kamarudin can be implicated in various crimes and incarcerated until their teeth fall out of their gums.

Yes, the police report to Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah. And Shafee Abdullah coordinates this special police operation with the IGP and AG. And the purpose of this special police operations centre in the meeting room of Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s law firm is to explore how to incarcerate Anwar Ibrahim and Raja Petra Kamarudin. And the special police operations centre has to be in Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s office and not in the police headquarters because, officially, the IGP and AG are not involved in the Anwar sodomy case, as announced by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Shafee Abdullah is no ordinary man. In fact, he is not even a man; he is a devil. But he is Malaysia’s first and foremost sodomologist, a specialist in crimes of sodomy. And that is why the Pusrawi doctor’s report was rejected. He is just a normal doctor, a GP, argued the government. The prognosis of a normal doctor can’t be accepted as evidence in a sodomy case, never mind if he has been practicing medicine for two decades or more. They need the prognosis of a sodomy specialist, a sodomologist, and Shafee Abdullah is Malaysia’s first and foremost sodomologist.

That is why Senior Assistant Commissioner (SAC) II Mohd Rodwan Mohd Yusof did not meet Saiful in the police station or at the police headquarters. The special police operations centre is not in the police station or at the police headquarters. It is in the meeting room of Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s law firm. So it would be dangerous to meet Saiful in this law firm lest someone finds out. That is why Rodwan met Saiful in room 619 of the Concorde Hotel.

Okay, so Rodwan met Saiful one day before the alleged crime took place. But then maybe Rodwan is clairvoyant or he has a crystal ball and he ‘saw’ that a crime of sodomy was going to take place the following day. Some people do have this gift of ‘foresight’. Nevertheless, whether the timeline appears a bit out of sync or not, they still have the ‘evidence’ to work on to ‘prove’ that Anwar did sodomise Saiful the day AFTER Saiful met Rodwan in room 619 of the Concorde Hotel.

One such crucial evidence was supposed to be the doctor from Pusrawi’s medical examination of Saiful at 2.00pm on Saturday, 28 June 2008. But then the doctor said that he had examined Saiful and found no evidence of sodomy. This report has since surfaced and the doctor has gone missing so, now, there is no way they can use this evidence.

The next evidence was supposed to be the second medical examination done at the Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) at 4.00pm on Saturday, 28 June 2008. But then the outpatient department of the HKL was closed at 4.00pm on Saturday, 28 June 2008. So how could a second medical examination have been done? Yes, that’s right. No second medical examination was done and the doctors at the HKL refuse to doctor a medical report to say that the second medical examination had been done, when none had been done, or to say that they did find evidence of sodomy, when they did not.

Since none of the doctors at Pusrawi or HKL are cooperating with the police, the last piece of ‘evidence’ will have to be Saiful’s underwear. Okay, Saiful’s underwear does not really have Anwar’s semen stains on it. But this is a small matter. As long as someone from the Chemistry Department is prepared to testify that they did examine Saiful’s underwear and they did find Anwar’s semen stains on it, then that would be good enough. They will be able to build their case against Anwar and charge him for sodomy based on this ‘evidence’ from the Chemistry Department.

No, the Chemistry Department has NOT come out with their report yet. There is no report from the Chemistry Department that says they found Anwar’s semen stains on Saiful’s underwear. This is because they first of all need Anwar’s specimen so that they can plant it on the underwear and so that the Chemistry Department can then ‘discover’ it.

But Anwar is being bloody silly. He is being extremely pigheaded and stubborn. He refuses to hand over his specimen. How can they plant Anwar’s semen on Saiful’s underwear when Anwar refuses to let them take his specimen? The Chemistry Department can’t prepare its report saying that it found Anwar’s semen on Saiful’s underwear until the police are able to plant it there. But Anwar does not want to voluntarily hand over his specimen so this plan is being upset a bit.

But never mind. As soon as Parliament convenes later this month they will rush through a new law that will make it mandatory for you to hand over your specimen if the police demands that you do so. Refusing to hand over your specimen when the police demand you do so will soon become a crime and you can be sent to jail. They will try to pass this law before Merdeka Day of 31 August 2008 and they will try to backdate the law and make it retrospective so that any ‘crime’ committed before the passing of this law will also be covered.

Soon they will get Anwar once the DNA Act becomes law and Anwar can no longer refuse to hand over his specimen. Then, once they have obtained Anwar’s specimen, the Chemistry Department will be able to ‘discover’ it on Saiful’s underwear. Then they will be able to arrest and charge Anwar. And, who knows, they might even be able to convict him as well.

Yes, this Shafee Abdullah the sodomologist is good. He has names, charts, notes, scribbling and etchings all over his whiteboard in the meeting room of his law firm. This meeting room has been the special police operations centre for quite a while now. It was set up long before the alleged sodomy crime took place on 26 June 2008. It was set up not to solve the sodomy crime. It was set up to create the crime.

But, thus far, they lack one very crucial piece of evidence. They lack Anwar’s specimen that they need to plant on Saiful’s underwear. But they will get it as soon as the new DNA Act becomes law and they can use this law to force Anwar to hand over his specimen. Then Anwar is finished and they can close down the special police operations centre in the meeting room of Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s law firm and once again use this meeting room for fixing legal cases.