THAT WACKY MAHATHIR!
Trained as a medical doctor and skilled in politics, there is no doubt that he is an intelligent man. But events in Malaysia may help explain Mahathir’s ridiculous rants.After developing a dislike for the policies of Anwar Ibrahim, the man he was grooming to take over as PM, Mahathir fabricated charges of sodomy in 1998 and had Anwar imprisoned.
Judge part of conspiracy to frame Anwar
Did the conspiracy to frame Anwar Ibrahim on trumped-up charges extend higher than the Attorney-General and Public Prosecutors? Did it also involve the Trial Judge as well?
If, in the beginning, these were just suspicions, today, we can safely say that the Trial Judge was certainly part of the conspiracy, maybe even the most important component in that gang of slime balls.
What was revealed via Anwar Ibrahim’s latest Affidavit filed in the Federal Court on
If - and I repeat “IF” - up to now the claim that Anwar Ibrahim is a victim of a frame-up was but a mere allegation, this new Affidavit and its three attachments now prove it beyond any shadow of doubt.
Little wonder the court panicked and decided to postpone Anwar’s Judicial Review scheduled for yesterday. Officially, they need more time to “find two more judges”. Word from our contacts in court, however, is they need more time to study this Affidavit.
The truth is, they probably need more time to confer with the Acting Prime Minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, or look for Dr Mahathir Mahathir Mohamad who is holidaying somewhere around the world to obtain further instructions on how to conduct a “damage control” exercise.
Those who know how the corrupt Malaysian judiciary works (the best money can buy) say this new and most damaging piece of evidence is not going to change anything. They have already written the judgment before even sitting down to hear the case.
This may be so as far as the legal aspects of the case is concerned. But it is not so easy as far as the “political fallout” is concerned. In the end, the powers-that-be will still have to face the voters come next election and the “court of public opinion” might not concur with how the court rules.
Remember, in an open hearing, the public is allowed to witness the proceedings and, for sure, what transpires will be widely reported all over the world.
However, there are a few things they can do to “soften” the blow:
1) Refuse to allow this new Affidavit to be admitted into the hearing. Therefore no one will know about it.
2) Hold the Judicial Review the day the
3) Hold the Judicial Review for just five minutes, say that the court has considered the application for a Judicial Review and has found that there are no grounds for one, and then adjourn without further discussion.
The betting counter is now open. Which plan do you think they will adopt?
“It has been brought to my knowledge that, on the 26th of February 2003, one of my counsels, ZainurZakaria, faxed copies of letters he received from Manjeet Singh Dhillon to Christopher Fernando (another of Anwar’s counsels),” said Anwar in his 14 March 2003 Affidavit.
“The letter sent to Zainur Zakaria contained an enclosure which is a letter written by Manjeet SinghDhillon to the Chief Justice (the recently retired one) where Manjeet Singh Dhillon made a formal complaint against Justice Augustine Paul (the trial judge) for improper conduct in the Zainur Zakariacase which occurred during my trial.”
“These two letters were faxed to Fernando as he is my lead counsel in my upcoming appeal (the second, sodomy, conviction) before the Court of Appeal beginning on the 24th of March, 2003, and obviously also because what is stated in those letters affect me and the trial process I was subjected to.”
“This evidence was not available to me during my trial and this evidence is relevant to my case. Such evidence is credible and believable coming from a witness who is a senior and respected Advocate and Solicitor and a former Chairman of the Bar Council. Last but not least, this evidence would have had a decidedly important influence on the outcome of my case.”
Anwar then relates what transpired that would make this incident crucial to his case:
“Manjeet Singh Dhillon was requested by Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah (the Attorney-General then who has been in a comma since the last few months) to see him before proceedings for the proposed contempt proceedings against himself and Zainur Zakaria began that morning.”
“The request was made through Manjeet’s counsel, Jagjeet Singh.”
“Manjeet reluctantly agreed and met with Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah. They met at the anteroom at the courthouse in the presence of Datuk Abdul Gani Patail (the Public Prosecutor), Datuk Azhar Mohamad (another of the Prosecutors), and Jagjeet Singh.”
“Upon seeing Manjeet, Tan Sri Mohtar went up and hugged him and turned around and told Abdul Ganiand Azhar that Manjeet was an altruist and apologized to Manjeet for not having done anything on his letter in which he had leveled accusations against the two Prosecutors.”
“Tan Sri Mohtar added that he had not as yet taken this matter up with his officers.”
“Manjeet responded by reminding Tan Sri Mohtar that he had made very serious allegations against his officers and had written to him expecting something to be done but that nothing had been done.”
This letter that they are talking about is the complaint Manjeet sent Tan Sri Mohtar regarding AbdulGani and Azhar attempting to extort fabricated evidence from his (Manjeet’s) client Datuk NallaKaruppan to be used against Anwar in exchange for Nalla’s life.
“Tan Sri Mohtar did not deny or refute Manjeet’s allegations against his officers and both Abdul Ganiand Azhar remained silent.”
Though faced with the prospect of a death sentence if he does not “cooperate”, in September 1998, Datuk Nalla Karuppan made a signed statement denying that Anwar was involved in any sexual improprieties.
During the course of Anwar’s trial, Manjeet and Zainur brought this matter to the attention of the court. However, instead of acting on the information, the judge, Augustine Paul, asked the two lawyers to withdraw the allegation and apologise or else he would hold them in contempt.
When Zainur refused to do so, this angered the judge and, in a move that shocked the entire legal fraternity, he cited Zainur for contempt and sentenced him to three months jail; a most unusual and perplexing move indeed.
“This unusual attitude of the trial court had effectively deprived me of the opportunity of exposing an evil plot against me to secure my conviction by devious means, perpetrated by none other than the two main prosecutors in my case, one of whom is now the Attorney General,” argued Anwar.
Zainur Zakaria subsequently appealed against his contempt conviction and three-month sentence and the Federal Court acquitted him on grounds that there was indeed an attempt to fabricate evidence against Anwar and that Zainur was right in bringing it up.
The question now one needs to ask is, if Zainur was right in bringing this matter up as it was true, how would this affect Anwar’s guilty verdict which, therefore, was obtained based on fabricated evidence?
MORE ON THE ZAINUR ZAKARIA STORY:
Letter from Manjeet Singh Dhillon to Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah, 12th October 1998
Statutory Declaration by Manjeet Singh Dhillon, November 9th, 1998
Judgment of the Federal Court delivered by Tan Sri Datuk Steve L.K. Shim
No comments:
Post a Comment