Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s Sodomy II case is a “test” of Muslim-majority Malaysia’s commitment to democracy and rule of law, according to the Washington Post.
The well-read and respected US daily has joined a growing choir criticising its president Barack Obama for his administration’s “weak” stand in the prosecution of the Malaysian opposition leader.
The newspaper said Anwar has become one of the best advocates for liberal democracy in the Muslim world.
It added that the 64-year-old’s Pakatan Rakyat (PR) coalition of “secular, Muslim and ethnic Chinese groups could make Malaysia the second majority-Muslim country in Asia, after Indonesia, to become a working democracy.”
“Mr Anwar is not perfect: Lashing out at (Datuk Seri) Najib (Razak) after his arrest, he employed ugly anti-Israel rhetoric, for which he later apologised.
“He nevertheless deserves support from the United States and other nations seeking to broaden human rights in the Muslim world,” the Washington Post said in its editorial published yesterday.
The Post, as it is popularly called, slammed Obama for his public silence and lack of “overt pressure” during his last meeting with Najib in November last year, instead heaping “praise on the prime minister for ‘the extraordinary cooperation that we’ve received on a whole range of issues.”
It noted that Malaysia has been a modest help in dealing with terrorism, which it shrewdly highlighted as being part of the United States’ strategy in beefing its position in Asia.
But it added that safeguarding US interests did not justify stepping aside as Anwar and Malaysia’s “hopes for democracy, are crushed”.
Referring to tomorrow’s High Court verdict for Anwar in his second sodomy trial, the Post warned that “if the verdict fails that test, there should be consequences for Mr. Najib’s relations with Washington”.
But we failed to take into consideration one very important point. And this one very important point is Dr Mahathir is a more seasoned politician than we gave him credit for. And the script for the final scenario was written by him: his puppet Najib became Prime Minister instead of Ku Li who wanted then to be ‘independent’, reform the government, and offer the opposition a role in the government under a Unity Government.
Why do we say “law and order” rather than “order and law”? Simple. Law comes before order. Law defines the nature of order. Law is the difference between civilization and chaos. Law is evolutionary: the edicts of tribes, chiefs and dynasties lifted human societies from scattered peril to structured coexistence. The laws of democracy have vaulted us to the acme of social cohesion, for they eliminated arbitrary diktat and introduced collective will. The divine right of kings is dead; it has been reborn as the secular right of an elected Parliament.
A nation that cannot uphold its law cannot preserve its order
Mahatir may be the seasoned politician.Mahatir may be the one writing out all the scripts. And if the Malaysian voters let himin again with even a remote chancehis puppet Najib shall continue unabated.
A nation that cannot uphold its law cannot preserve its order
Mahatir may be the seasoned politician.Mahatir may be the one writing out all the scripts. And if the Malaysian voters let himin again with even a remote chancehis puppet Najib shall continue unabated.
Our present generation was raped since the 1970s. It appears our present children’s generation is also being raped continously today. But the rakyat must ensure the buck stops right in GE13.
All these high-profile shrewed politicians have gained at our expense. If we remain so naive not to know, our children and their children deserve no better than what we had endured. Wake up and KICK em all out in GE13.
Even casual samplers of the media now come across colossal injustices and failures in the U.S. justice criminal system every two weeks or so. Yet these stories, everyone a heart-breaking recitation of how willful prosecution misconduct has ruined a life or a family, with no consequences at all to whoever has abused his great powers as a prosecutor, seem never to elicit any particular public response or gain any traction for review or reform.
It is an achievement just to pierce the eagerness of most of the media to be a stentorian Hallelujah chorus for law and order paranoia.
The latest such incident is the lamentable affair in Texas in which Michael Morton wasaccused and convicted of murdering his wife, spent 25 years in prison, has been exonerated because of DNA evidence that was withheld from the trial by prosecutors, and another suspect has now been arrested and charged. Mistakes happen, are not rare, and provide one of the strongest arguments against the death penalty.
What makes this more worrisome than a sad story of a no-fault miscarriage of justice, are strong allegations that the prosecutors, Ken Anderson, now a state judge, and Mike Davis, deliberately sandbagged Morton by unlawfully withholding evidence.
It is alleged that Anderson withheld police notes that someone else committed the murder, did not provide the full police report, including evidence of activity on Mrs. Morton’s credit card after Mr. Morton had been taken into custody; and that Anderson advised his successor as prosecutor “to oppose all of Mr. Morton’s post-conviction motions for DNA testing.”
Morton and his counsel have been assisted by the Innocence Foundation, which specializes in using DNA evidence to seek the exoneration of convicts. It and like-minded groups have sometimes been harassed by prosecutors and threatened with charges of obstructing justice. Innocence and Morton’s own counsel claim that in this case Anderson disobeyed “a direct order from the trial court to produce the exculpatory police reports from the lead investigator,” (a claim the investigator himself corroborates). Morton and his counsel have asked for a “court of inquiry” to determine whether Anderson and Davis should be charged criminally for abetting what they knew to be a false conviction.
For the purposes of determining wrongdoing, the Texas attorney general became the special prosecutor, and the spokesman for the attorney general declined to reply to questions about a possible conflict of interest. Anderson and Davis at first refused to give depositions or answer subpoenas, but when overwhelmed by decisions validating Morton’s right to know more, Anderson said he felt “sick” about what had happened, but explained, as if it mitigated responsibility or the gravity of what occurred, that “prosecutors are under a lot of pressure to convict.” Davis claimed to be only an “innocent bystander” between Morton and Anderson, an unusual posture for a prosecutor in his own case.
The issue is whether prosecutors are under any requirement at all to comply with defendants’ constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial, or if there is no sanction at all for their violation of those rights. In a well-publicized Arkansas case last year, three men who had been in prison for 17 years, one on death row, for a murder for which they were ultimately exonerated, could only negotiate themselves to freedom by pleading guilty to a lesser offense for which they were released for time served. But by pre-arrangement, they recounted to the court that it was a false plea, that they were not guilty of anything, and that they were only going through this charade to restart their lives as free men as quickly as possible. The episode was reported almost without comment even in the liberal national media.
Prosecutors have practically untrammeled discretion in deciding what to charge, how many counts to allege, and a very wide latitude in sentences sought. Grand juries are just a rubber stamp for prosecutors, and contrary to the spirit of the Fifth Amendment, provide absolutely no assurance against capricious prosecution. But complicity in or direct causation of the lengthy incarceration of falsely accused and convicted people, not to be confused with honest error and misplaced zeal, is a terribly serious offense and is so treated in every other serious jurisdiction except the U.S.
The Brady Rule, enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1963, requires prosecutors to disclose evidence favorable to defendants. But failure to do so is rarely discovered and almost never punished when it is unearthed. In the infamous case of Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, it was revealed that the prosecutors had withheld evidence that they knew to be exculpatory, causing the senator’s conviction and narrow electoral defeat, before the whole case was blown up as unjust.
Yet the court-appointed inquiry did not recommend criminal proceedings against the prosecutors for professional misconduct because the trial judge had not told the prosecutors that they had to obey the law. This is utterly spurious, of course, but especially so as the transcript reveals that the prosecutors responded to a request from senator Stevens’ defense team for a motion so ordering them, that it was unnecessary because they would of course not break the law. (The report expressed no opinion about charging the prosecutors with obstruction of justice.)
The legal profession in the United States is a professional cartel where legislating lawyers and regulators produce thousands of new enforceable laws and regulations every year; judges, prosecutors, and private sector counsel lock arms to ensure that legal invoices, (which total almost 10 per cent of GDP — almost $1.4 trillion annually), are paid as a priority surpassed only by the claims of government.
Unlimited incidences of what other legally serious countries would consider frivolous or vexatious litigation clog the civil courts, and prosecutors enjoy a stacked evidentiary and procedural deck which gives them a success rate in prosecutions of over 90 per cent. (The corresponding figure in Canada is about 65 per cent, and only about 40 per cent of those receive custodial sentences.)
The United States has just five per cent of the world’s population, 25 per cent of its incarcerated people, and 50 per cent of its lawyers. The U.S. Supreme Court is unvaryingly proud to try law and not fact, and is thus ostentatiously uninterested in a just result as such, in the unutterably irritating and desiccated way of people who profess indifference to the control they exercise over the fate of real people.
Last year, in the case of John Thompson, a man who spent 14 years on death row for a crime of which he was eventually exonerated, after a shocking sequence of prosecution acts of deceit, the Supreme Court conferred what amounted to an absolute immunity for prosecutors from civil recourse for their actions. Justice Thomas, for the court majority, explained that the “attorney (including a prosecutor) who violates his or her ethical (obligations) is subject to professional discipline, including sanctions, suspension, and disbarment.” The justice knows what a fatuous bit of dissembling this is, as the legal cartel locks arms to assist its members to escape responsibility for all but the most egregious crimes. (Justice Ginsburg’s opinion for the dissenters was very cogent.)
In any other legally serious country, the Morton-like cases would incite public outrage. In the Morton case, Judge Sid Harle, in releasing Morton after 25 years of wrongful imprisonment caused by prosecution dishonesty, expressed his “sympathies” for Morton, but said his release proved that the United States “has the best justice system in the world.”
In fact, it is a frequently evil and generally defective system that thrives on complacency. Republicans have even delayed Senator Jim Webb’s proposal to establish a blue ribbon commission to review stratospheric American incarceration rates.
In the United States, even the staggering 48 million people with a “record” seem not to care. The media, in their lust to amplify the publicization of crime and incite paranoia, have brain-washed from public memory the ragged bourgeois, constitutional, heirloom of the presumption of innocence.
Next to the electoral accountability of government officials, the two greatest pillars of democratic civilization are the rule of law and a free press. By giving the press, in theNew York Times and Sullivan, an almost absolute immunity against defamation actions, and the prosecution service an almost absolute immunity from responsibility for its own lawlessness, the Supreme Court has detonated high explosives under the foundations of American civilization.
Needless to add, the justices enjoy life sinecures in their August offices, and have generally avoided the well-earned public contempt that now largely attaches to the Congress and most of the administration. The law is a very spavined ass, and the sooner the public realizes this and determines that something must be done about it, the better it will be for everyone.
One comes across more people who admit to nursing regrets, rather than those who proclaim they have none. Of the regrets Corruption booms when perverse incentives reward rather than penalize it. We need institutional changes to end those perverse incentives.I hope 2011 will go down as the year when an angry electorate finally obliged politicians to stop treating politics as a lucrative,We need three major institutional reforms for starters The main issue is whether Gani had falsified evidence in the investigation involving Anwar or not. It is clear that, in this case, the government had confirmed that the falsifying of evidence did take place.
“In short, whether by design or through technical grounds, the government has affirmed Gani as a criminal,” Only institutional change can break this criminalization of politics. Exposure of criminal like
“In short, whether by design or through technical grounds, the government has affirmed Gani as a criminal,” Only institutional change can break this criminalization of politics. Exposure of criminal like
Free the Attorney-General of political control
A former CID director, Mat Zain, has argued that the federal government has “confirmed” that Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail tampered with evidence in the 1998 ‘black eye’ incident involving Anwar Ibrahim.
A former CID director, Mat Zain, has argued that the federal government has “confirmed” that Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail tampered with evidence in the 1998 ‘black eye’ incident involving Anwar Ibrahim.
Mat Zain Ibrahim, in an open letter to Inspector-General of Police Ismail Omar, referred to a 
review of the incident by a three-member panel. He noted that one panel-member had established a prima facie case against Gani (right). And by defending the panel’s legitimacy and authority through a ministerial statement to Parliament last December, he argued, Putrajaya had validated the minority finding.
review of the incident by a three-member panel. He noted that one panel-member had established a prima facie case against Gani (right). And by defending the panel’s legitimacy and authority through a ministerial statement to Parliament last December, he argued, Putrajaya had validated the minority finding.“The main issue is whether Gani had falsified evidence in the investigation involving Anwar or not. It is clear that, in this case, the government had confirmed that the falsifying of evidence did take place.
“In short, whether by design or through technical grounds, the government has affirmed Gani as a criminal,” alleged Mat Zain in the lengthy letter also sent to selected news orgasations.
In July 2008, Anwar faced allegations of sodomising his then aide Mohd Saiful Bukhary Azlan,
The damage is already done. Due to witness and prosecution involvement, the case will be viewed as a miscarriage of justice and must be thrown out -it will proceed until DSAI is removed forever.Deputy Public Prosecutor Farah Azlina Latif was dropped today from the team prosecuting Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim for sodomy after allegations surfaced last week that she was romantically involved with complainant and chief witness Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail told reporters today that the junior prosecutor was removed to prevent negative public perception of the Sodomy II prosecution team “The Attorney-General’s Chambers cannot compromise on any issue that can tarnish the image or credibility of the department and we are looking at such matters very seriously“This can be very difficult for us but any personal matter if it can have any implication in whatever form on the department will be handled very seriously ” he told reporters at a press conference at his office here.
Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail told reporters today that the junior prosecutor was removed to prevent negative public perception of the Sodomy II prosecution team.
Queensland University political scientist David Martin Jones, currently working in Malaysia, says: “There is now an interesting collection of scandals dating from the first Anwar case in 1998 that coincides with the fragmentation of Umno-controlled politics.”
“For the second time,” Danby said, “the Malaysian legal system is being manipulated by supporters of the incumbent government to drive Malaysia’s best-known leader, Anwar Ibrahim, out of national politics.
IN THE RUN-UP TO ANWAR IBRAHIM’S SODOMY TRIAL, HIS LAWYERS INCLUDING SENIOR COUNSEL SIVARASA RASIAH HAD WARNED THAT IN THE END THE GOVERNMENT WOULD TRY TO NAIL THE OPPOSITION LEADER BASED ON FABRICATED DNA EVIDENCE.
And it looks like they may have guessed correctly.
On Thursday, lead prosecutor Mohd Yusof Zainal Abidin managed to get Dr Mohd Razali Ibrahim, one of three HKL doctors who examined complainant Saiful Bukhari Azlan, to stun the Court by agreeing that there was anal penetration.
“With all these reports I have now, there is evidence of penetration even without clinical injuries found on the complainant,” Mohd Razali said.
No, he did not reverse or overturn his own HKL medical report, which in fact, he stood by. Corroborated by two colleagues, the report had stated there were no conclusive clinical findings suggesting there was penetration of the anus nor were there any significant defensive wound on the complainant’s body.
A second medical report from Hospital Pusrawi also came to the same conclusion. Why then did Dr Mohd Razali, who has handled more than 100 cases involving the anal area, tell the Court that he “would say there was penile penetration”?
related article
In an allegation that startles even those used to his flamboyant style, fugitive blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin has accused one of the prosecutors in Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy trial of having a sexual relationship with Saiful Bukhari Azlan, the star prosecution witness in the case.In a posting entitled “The bizarre case of Sodomy 2,” he says Saiful and Farah Azlina Latif are lovers
and responded by lodging a police report against Gani, then police chief Musa Hassan, Mat Zain and one Dr Abdul Rahman Yusof.
Anwar accused the four of tampering with evidence used in the investigations into the ‘black eye’ incident. This was part of his efforts to show that there was a high-level conspiracy against him and that Gani and Musa could not therefore be party to the probe into the fresh sodomy charge.http://malaysiakita786.blogspot.com/2011/08/common-sense-in-coma-deja-vu-all-over.html
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) investigated the matter and formed an independent panel comprising former top judges Kadir Sulaiman (left), Wira Mohd Nor and Ahmad Nor Abdullah to probe the allegation.Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz told Parliament in March 2009 that the panel had cleared both Gani and Musa of wrongdoing, but there was no mention of Mat Zain and Abdul Rahman.
Nazri said one of the three panel-members had indeed found a case against Gani, but that the panel’s decision was based on the majority view.
‘Review Musa’s role’
‘Review Musa’s role’
Mat Zain said Musa’s alleged role in briefing then premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad on allegations of Anwar’s sexual misconduct must also be examined in light of a recent judgment that has raised questions about Musa’s credibility.
Mat Zain noted that Mahathir wrote in his memoirs that he had been briefed about Anwar’s alleged misconduct by IGP (Tun) Hanif Omar in 1993, but took the matter lightly until a subsequent briefing by new IGP Abdul Rahim Noor and Musa, then the investigating officer.
“This time, they had evidence, including pictures and confessions of the people involved,” wrote Mahathir.But Mat Zain argued that Sessions Court Judge Supang Lian had in a 2009 judgment ruled Musa (right) to be “unreliable and to be disregarded” as a witness in the MACC’s legal proceedings against former Commercial Crimes Investigation Department chief Ramli Yusoff.
In view of this, Mat Zain said Musa’s role in the 1997 briefing to Mahathir is now questionable and must be reviewed.
“If a Sessions Court judge can record that Musa cannot be trusted in the notes of proceeding, at a time when he was still the IGP, it is not wrong to question whether he was lying or not when he briefed Mahathir on Anwar,” said Mat Zain.
Musa recently denied Mat Zain’s claims and instead accused the latter of being in cahoots with Anwar.
RELATED ARTICLEJudge part of conspiracy to frame Anwar http://www.freeanwar.net/jan2003/facnews190303.htm
Expert stumped over ‘planted sperm’ poser
Common Sense in a Coma Déjà Vu All Over Again the the Strategic Partnership in fabrication of evidence,.scientists from Israel help to plant evidence
Common Sense in a Coma Déjà Vu All Over Again the the Strategic Partnership in fabrication of evidence,.scientists from Israel help to plant evidence
related article
THE MOST EXPENSIVE ASSHOLE MAN IN THE WORLD FARAH AZLINA LATIF SEX WITH MOHD SAIFUL BUKHARI AZLAN ‘RUINS CREDIBILITY OF THE THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S CHAMBERS RELATED ARTICLEJudge part of conspiracy to frame Anwar http://www.freeanwar.net/jan2003/facnews190303.htm Expert stumped over ‘planted sperm’ poser Common Sense in a Coma Déjà Vu All Over Again the the Strategic Partnership in fabrication … Read more
THE MOST EXPENSIVE ASSHOLE MAN IN THE WORLD FARAH AZLINA LATIF SEX WITH MOHD SAIFUL BUKHARI AZLAN ‘RUINS CREDIBILITY OF THE THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S CHAMBERS RELATED ARTICLEJudge part of conspiracy to frame Anwar http://www.freeanwar.net/jan2003/facnews190303.htm Expert stumped over ‘planted sperm’ poser Common Sense in a Coma Déjà Vu All Over Again the the Strategic Partnership in fabrication … Read more
BOTH FATHER AND SON ARE IN THE WRONG BUSINESS ASSHOLE FOR HIRE ABETTED BY UMNO IN COLLABORATION WITH MAINSTREAM MEDIA
A-G Gani Patail cannot be the Guardian of the Law, says Mat Zainby Din MericanFormer KL CID Chief Datuk Mat Zain Ibrahim, is on a rampage against A-G Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail. He has ceaselessly accused A-G Gani of many criminal acts in the past, and did it again on September 19, 2011 in his open letter to IGP Tan Sri Ismail Omar.Mat Zain also questioned Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Najib Razak’s sincerity and resolve to institute reforms in the country by stating openly that Prime Minister Najib is aware of the criminal conduct of A-G Gani Patail. In a blistering attack against A-G Gani, Mat Zain says:“I believe that this nation would not consent to have an Attorney- General who has been confirmed as a criminal by the Government to continue to be the guardian and protector of the people’s fundamental rights and civil liberties…If Prime Minister Najib continues to use Gani Patail to head the drafting of these law reforms, then Prime Minister Najib is just dumping the fundamental rights and civil liberties of the people in the palm of a criminal.”
It s amazing that A-G Gani has taken no action against Mat Zain nor defended himself against Mat Zain’s accusations. Is this an admission that all that Mat Zain have said are true? If these allegations are true, indeed PM Najib’s call for reforms is mere election rhetoric.
I have decided to reproduce Mat Zain’s letter, which I received via e-mail, in full below:
Mat Zain bin Ibrahim,
matzainibrahim@gmail.com
matzainibrahim@gmail.com
19hb. September 2011.
Kepada:
YDH Tan Sri Ismail bin Haji Omar, IG,
Ketua Polis Negara,
Polis Di-Raja Malaysia.
iho@rmp.gov.my
Ketua Polis Negara,
Polis Di-Raja Malaysia.
iho@rmp.gov.my
Assalamualaikum wbt.
KERAJAAN SAHKAN GANI PATAIL PALSU KETERANGAN
1.Surat ini merupakan lanjutan dan sebahagian daripada surat terbuka saya bertarikh 12.09.2011 bertajuk, “Kenyataan Tertuduh-Benarkah Anwar Dianiaya.”
2.Musa Hassan telah mengeluarkan kenyataan balas menerusi akhbar Berita Harian pada 14.09.2011.Beliau telah menafikan semua dakwaan terhadap diri beliau dan Gani Patail.Beliau bukan setakat menyatakan dakwaan tersebut semuanya dusta, malah turut mengalihkan isu ini sebagai satu konspirasi jahat yang dipelopori olih Anwar.
2.1.Saya menyatakan bahawa sepertimana juga orang lain, Musa Hassan adalah berhak keatas pendapat sendiri dan juga kepada perbicaraan yang adil.
3.Walaupun begitu, beliau tidak sepatutnya tanpa usul periksa memperkecil kredibiliti blog-blog. Beliau sepatutnya sedar bahawa fakta-fakta yang tersiar berkaitan isu ini, adalah petikan keterangan saksi-saksi dalam laporan RCI Mata-lebam,nota prosiding Mahkamah, keterangan dalam kertas siasatan kes berkenaan dan termasuk keterangan beliau berikan sendiri serta Pernyataan Tuntutan yang beliau telah failkan dalam Mahkamah. Saya mengambil tanggung jawab sepenuhnya keatas kebenaran pendedahan yang saya buat.
Mengapa isu ditimbulkan sekarang.
4.Soalan mengapa isu ini ditimbulkan sekarang sedangkan kes ini berlaku 12 tahun yang lalu,sepatutnya Musa Hassan tujukan kepada Tun Mahathir. Mengapa selepas 13 tahun baru Tun merakamkan memoirs beliau dalam A Doctor In The House.
4.1.Antara lainnya Tun Mahathir mendedahkan pula Musa Hassan yang memberikan taklimat yang meyakinkan beliau mengenai penglibatan Anwar dalam aktiviti homoseksual. Padahal beberapa tahun sebelum itu, Y.A.Bhg.Tun Mohammed Hanif Omar pernah mentaklimatkan beliau mengenai perkara serupa, tetapi beliau tidak mengambil berat maklumat tersebut.
4.2.Tentu ada sesuatu maklumat yang sangat istimewa yang Musa Hassan bentangkan hingga meyakinkan Tun.Diharap beliau tidak menuduh pula pendedahan dalam memoirs Tun ini juga adalah sebahagian daripada konspirasi yang dirancang olih Anwar.
Isu dalam persoalan.
5.Saya wajar menekankan kepada beliau bahawa isu yang dibincangkan sekarang tidak ada kena mengena dengan isu politik. Malahan tidak ada langsung orang politik yang terlibat dalam dakwaan ini. Pendedahan yang dibuat adalah semata-mata berkaitan penjenayahan, keadilan awam (public justice) dan system keadilan jenayah itu sendiri.
5.1.Dakwaan terhadap Gani Patail dan beliau adalah kerana memberi atau mereka keterangan palsu terhadap Anwar. Serta persoalan sama ada Hakim Mahkamah telah mensabitkan kesalahan berdasarkan keterangan palsu yang diberi atau direka olih mana-mana saksi ketika perbicaraan,atau sebaliknya.
5.2.Kita tidak bolih membiarkan sebarang penganiayaan dilakukan terhadap mana-mana orang atau diatas apa sebab sekalipun.Bukan sahaja ia salah disisi undang-undang Negara, malah suatu dosa besar mengikut hukum Agama.
Contoh kes lampau.
6.Kejadian dimana Mahkamah menjatuhkan hukuman gantung sampai mati terhadap seorang tertuduh berdasarkan satu sahaja keterangan palsu yang diberikan olih seorang saksi,pernah berlaku dalam sejarah kehakiman Negara ini.
6.1.Dalam kes bunuh Jean Perera Sinnappa dalam bulan April 1979, tertuduh S.Kartigesu, ketika itu seorang Pensyarah disebuah Maktab Perguruan di-Ceras KL,telah didapati bersalah membunuh bekas ratu cantik tersebut dan dijatuhkan hukuman gantung sampai mati.
6.2.Setelah lebih dua tahun S.Kartigesu merengkok dalam penjara menunggu masa untuk digantung,beliau telah dibebaskan olih Mahkamah Rayuan apabila seorang saksi, Jayatilake didapati memberi keterangan palsu dalam perbicaraan kes bunuh itu.
6.3.Sebaliknya Jayatilake pula dipenjarakan 10 tahun kerana memberi keterangan palsu, tetapi beliau telah meninggal dunia dalam penjara 2 tahun kemudian, ketika sedang menjalani hukuman.
6.4. Saya sarankan Musa Hassan membaca journal kes bunuh tersebut. Atau lebih pantas jika beliau mendapatkan butir sepenuhnya daripada Pegawai Penyiasat kes ini yang beliau kenal sangat.
7.Jika peristiwa seperti diatas bolih berlaku sebelum ini,maka kita harus menerima hakikat perkara serupa bolih berulang.Malah mungkin telah berlaku tetapi telah disembunyikan atau tidak dikesan olih sesiapa.
Keterangan palsu terkesan.
8.Dakwaan Musa Hassan telah memberi keterangan palsu dalam perbicaraan kes korupsi terhadap Anwar pada tahun 1998 hanya terkesan pada pertengahan tahun 2009.Ini berlaku apabila keterangan beliau berikan dalam perbicaraan kes Pendakwa Raya vs Ramli Yusuff di-Mahkamah Sesyen Kota Kinabalu dikatakan bertentangan dengan keterangan yang beliau berikan dalam kes korupsi Anwar tahun 1998.
8.1.Undang-Undang telah menetapkan bahawa perbezaan diantara “Ya” dengan “Tidak” atau antara “Tahu” dengan “Tidak Tahu” atau antara “Ada” dengan “Tidak Ada” adalah cukup untuk mensabitkan sesaorang itu dengan kesalahan memberi keterangan palsu. Kredibiliti Musa Hassan lebih dicurigai apabila Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Kota Kinabalu mendapati beliau sebagai seorang saksi yang diragui dan kesaksiannya ditolak.
8.2.Terbit daripada perbezaan dalam keterangan Musa Hassan yang dikesan itu, seorang Wakil Rakyat, Sivarasa Rasiah telah membuat laporan polis dalam bulan Mac 2010 terhadap beliau kerana kesalahan memberi keterangan palsu (perjury) dalam tahun 1998.
8.3. Memoir Tun Mahathir yang dikeluarkan mulai Mac 2011 pula secara kebetulan, menimbulkan beberapa persoalan berkaitan peranan dan kejujuran Musa Hassan dalam siasatan kes terhadap Anwar apabila rekod-rekod lama dinilai semula.
9.Jika seorang Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen bolih merakamkan dalam nota prosiding bahawa keterangan Musa Hassan tidak bolih dipercayai,sedangkan beliau ketika itu masih Ketua Polis Negara, maka tidak salah untuk mempersoalkan sama ada beliau telah berbohong atau tidak, ketika memberi taklimat kepada Tun Mahathir berkaitan Anwar.
Siasatan SPRM.
10.Umum telah maklum bahawa dakwaan Anwar pada 1.7.2008 terhadap Gani Patail,Musa Hassan,Dr.Abdul Rahman Yusof dan termasuk saya sendiri (atas sifat Pegawai Penyiasat kes mata-lebam)kerana memalsukan keterangan telah disiasat olih pihak SPRM. Kemudiannya Peguam Cara Negara telah melantik 3 orang Ahli Panel Bebas terdiri daripada mantan-mantan Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan dan Rayuan,sebagai DPP bagi meneliti kertas siasatan SPRM tersebut.
10.1.Pada 11.3.2009,iaitu lapan bulan kemudian, Menteri di-Jabatan Perdana Menteri telah mengumumkan di-Parlimen bahawa hanya dua orang sahaja iaitu, Gani Patail dan Musa Hassan dibersihkan daripada sebarang salahlaku. Walaupun demikian, seorang daripada Ahli Panel Bebas tersebut telah memutuskan terdapat keterangan salahlaku jenayah terhadap Gani Patail.
10.2.Tun Mahathir mempertahankan hujah beliau,bahawa walaupun Mahkamah Persekutuan telah membebaskan Anwar daripada pertuduhan meliwat atas sebab teknikal,Tun tetap mengatakan bahawa Anwar terlibat dalam aktiviti homoseksual kerana terdapat diantara Panel Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan tersebut yang mengesahkan terdapat keterangan aktiviti homoseksual antara Anwar dan Sukma benar berlaku.Kerajaan akur dan menghurmati pendirian Tun sedemikian itu.
10.3.Dalam premis yang sama,walaupun Gani Patail dan Musa Hassan telah dibersihkan daripada sebarang salahlaku jenayah, namun fakta ada diantara Ahli Panel Bebas yang menyatakan, terdapat keterangan salahlaku jenayah olih Gani Patail dalam dakwaan ini, adalah tidak tergugat. Ringkasnya, keterangan Gani Patail telah memalsukan keterangan seperti yang didakwa adalah intact.
10.4.Tambahan kepada itu pula,produk pemalsuan itu sendiri dalam bentuk 3 laporan pakar yang dipalsukan berjumlah 65 muka surat itu sememangnya ujud.Malah bolih diperiksa olih rakyat jelata jika masih ragu dengan dakwaan ini.Saya ulangi kenyataan saya bahawa keterangan ini adalah lebih konklusif dari keterangan DNA.
Pengesahan Panel Bebas dan Keputusan.
11.Saya kemudiannya mencabar kesahihan perlantikan Ahli Panel Bebas olih Peguam Cara Negara dibawah peruntukkan CPC.Saya menegaskan perlantikkan itu sebagai tidak sah dari sudut undang-undang dan bahawa keputusan yang dibuat olih Panel Bebas tesebut adalah sia-sia,lantas menuntut keputusan tersebut diistiharkan null and void.
11.1.Bagaimanapun Kerajaan sendiri yang secara bersungguh-sungguh menentang cabaran itu, sehingga keperingkat Menteri di-Jabatan Perdana Menteri membuat “Ministerial Statement” yang panjang lebar di-Parlimen dalam bulan Disember 2010 bagi menerangkan pendirian Kerajaan terhadap perlantikkan Panel Bebas tersebut ketika menjawab soalan berkaitan isu ini.
11.2.Kerajaan telah mengesahkan bahawa perlantikan 3 Ahli Panel Bebas yang dilantik olih Peguam Cara Negara itu adalah sah disisi undang-undang dan demikian itu keputusan yang dibuat olih Panel tersebut juga adalah sah dan diperakukan.
12.Saya mengambil pengesahan tersebut, sebagai Kerajaan turut memperakukan dan mengesahkan keputusan salah seorang Ahli Panel tersebut yang telah mendapati Gani Patail terlibat dalam salah laku jenayah.Dengan demikian itu dakwaan bahawa telah berlaku pemalsuan keterangan dalam siasatan kes melibatkan Anwar adalah betul.
13.Soal sama ada tindakan undang-undang telah diambil atau akan diambil kemudian atau tidak akan diambil langsung, terhadap Gani Patail adalah perkara kedua.Motif beliau melakukan pemalsuan itu juga tidak penting.
13.1.Perkara utama dalam persoalan ini, ialah sama ada beliau telah memalsukan keterangan dalam siasatan melibatkan Anwar atau tidak.Jelas dalam hal ini,Kerajaan sendiri yang telah mengesahkan pemalsuan keterangan itu benar berlaku.
13.2.Dalam kata ringkas,secara sengaja atau teknikal, Kerajaan sendiri yang mengesahkan Gani Patail sebagai seorang penjenayah.
“Covering up”.
14.Seterusnya,meminjam kata-kata budiman Tun Mahathir, “Even I would be compromised,for if it was discovered that I knew and yet failed to take necessary action then I would be accused of covering up”. (m.s.686 Memoirs).Kata-kata ini adalah selaras dengan peruntukkan dalam Kanun Keseksaan.Melindungi suatu kesalahan jenayah secara sendirinya, adalah satu salahlaku jenayah yang bolih dikenakan hukuman mengikut peruntukkan dalam Kanun Keseksaan.
15.Kini telahpun jelas,bahawa Jemaah Menteri,Jabatan Peguam Negara,SPRM dan Polis sedar bahawa Gani Patail telah disahkan melakukan salahlaku jenayah yang sangat serious.
15.1.Persoalan sekarang ialah bagaimana pula dengan tanggung-jawab masing-masing dalam mempastikan penguatkuasaan slogan “Rule of Law” secara “Without fear or favour” dan “no one above the law” yang saban hari masing-masing laungkan untuk didengar rakyat.
15.2.Siapa pula yang akan dipegang untuk mengambil tanggung-jawab “covering up” salahlaku jenayah ini yang telah disorokkan sekian lama.
Pengetahuan Perdana Menteri.
16.Saya menegaskan PM Najib sendiri dipercayai sedar perkara ini sejak Oktober 2008 lagi. Saya yang mentaklimatkan beliau di-Kementrian Kewangan ketika beliau masih Timbalan Perdana Menteri.
16.1.Taklimat ini saya susuli dengan laporan bertulis bertarikh 19.2.2009 yang disertakan dengan bukti-bukti lengkap menjelaskan dakwaan ini.Saya menjangka beliau akan mengambil tindakan sewajarnya, apabila beliau mengambil alih jawatan Perdana Menteri.
16.2.Alasan kekurangan bukti sepatutnya tidak timbul lagi. Alasan ‘standard’,akan siasat lanjut juga, tidak relevan kerana Panel Bebas telah membuat keputusan dan Kerajaan telah mengesahkannya.
17.Saya menyatakan diperingkat ini, Penubuhan satu Tribunal atau Suruhanjaya Di-Raja Penyiasatan bukan lagi satu opsyen.Ini memandangkan kes prima facie terhadap Gani Patail dan mereka-mereka yang bersubahat dengannya,kerana kesalahan memalsukan beberapa keterangan dalam sesuatu penyiasatan telah dibentuk.
Perkara am dan penutup.
18.Tun Mahathir menyatakan beliau tidak akan merelakan sesaorang yang tidak bermoral menjadi pengganti beliau sebagai Perdana Menteri.Saya percaya rakyat Negara ini pula tidak akan merelakan seorang Peguam Negara yang telah disahkan sebagai seorang penjenayah olih Kerajaan, terus menjadi pelindung hak kebebasan Rakyat dan Keadilan Awam.
19.Hanya beberapa hari yang lepas, Perdana Menteri telah mengumumkan pemansuhan ISA dan EO dengan menjanjikan akan menggubal undang-undang yang lebih sesuai demi memelihara kepentingan dan kebebasan rakyat, sambil menjamin keselamatan Negara. Pengumuman ini mendapat reaksi bercampur.
20.Bagaimanapun, sekiranya PM Najib terus menggunakan Gani Patail untuk mengepalai penggubalan undang-undang baru dan seterusnya,sedangkan Kerajaan beliau sendiri telah mengesahkan Gani Patail terlibat dalam salahlaku jenayah,maka samalah seolah PM Najib menghumbankan hak kebebasan dan nasib rakyat kedalam genggaman seorang penjenayah.
20.1.Jika ini berlaku, maka ianya bukan sahaja merupakan sebagai satu penderaan dan penganiayaan terhadap rakyat, malah terhadap Rule of Law itu sendiri.
Salam sejahtera.
Yang benar,
Mat Zain Ibrahim,
19hb. September 2011.
19hb. September 2011.
watch how Mahatir lie to Malaysian
No comments:
Post a Comment