Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy trial just shows that the victims of his trial are truth and justice. Perhaps it is time Prime minister Najib Abdul Razak stops manipulating the courts and stops betraying the rakyat.
There are inconsistencies in the medical examination, missing gaps in the forms and it appears that standard operating procedures were casually ignored. If these are insufficient to throw out the case, then what is?
Najib would be well advised to salvage whatever integrity and semblance of authority left behind. His conduct has thus far been shocking. How many more lies will he feed us? How much more of taxpayer’s money will be wasted?
Najib is supposed to be Prime minister but has yet to show leadership qualities. Can he not understand that we should now allow all political parties to concentrate on the country and improve the state of the economy, to restore investor confidence but more importantly to improve the lives of its rakyat?
Najib’s distraction is this trial. He is trying to detract us from the shocking state of the country’s finances, the economic mess, the disunity of its people, the poor governance, the bickering in his own party, the extravagances of his ministers and corrupt officials and his own fears about the ‘Egypt syndrome’.
The problem is he has no clue how to resolve them and there are others waiting in the wings ready to stab him in the back and resume control.
All of Najib’s extravagant plans have a habit of backfiring. Look at the other farcical show in town – the Royal Commission of Inquiry into political aid Teoh Beng Hock’s suspicious death. That has descended into chaos.
The rakyat is sick and tired of Najib’s plotting just to stay in power. We know he was never elected as Prime minister and is desperate to be elected at the next general elections. The problem is, once these men have tasted power, they will not want to let it go.
Moreover, the higher these people climb the ladder of authority, they more they are prepared to lie. Consequently, he is prepared to risk anything.
Yesterday, Karpal Singh and Anwar Ibrahim urged the attorney-general (AG) to drop the charge against Anwar.
Karpal said, “The doctors have contradicted their report and Saiful’s complaint. The pro forma form states ‘attempted sodomy’.”
The proforma report clearly showed that Saiful had complained of attempted sodomy and oral sex; these contradict his own earlier claims.
Karpal implored Najib to stop making Malaysia a subject of ridicule: “I call on the AG to step in immediately and drop the charge, (or it will) result in further embarrassment for the country.”
He then explained that there was provision in the lower courts for a charge to be dropped if there was conflict of evidence. However, this was absent in the High Court and that is why Karpal had asked the AG to step in.
Another defence team lawyer, Param Cumaraswamy, repeated Karpal’s call.
He said, “It is proper now for the prosecution to honourably withdraw the charge in light of this latest development.”
Param, is a former UN special rapporteur and he noted that what the public wanted was for the prosecution to abide by standards set up in the UN Standard Rule on Prosecution.
Anwar reiterated his stand that the charges were frivolous and politically motivated.
He took swipes at Najib and said that the excessive malice shown to him by the Najib administration ranged from denying him access to key documents, to the unprofessional attitude of the Attorney-General’s office.
Anwar warned, “The AG should not act in the interests of his political masters”.
PKR director of legal affairs Latheefa Koya said: “We are happy but also extremely angry. This is the most farcical show. Not only has the trial caused Anwar and his family deep pain but it has embarrassed the entire nation. It has made Malaysia’s name mud.”
She added, “This case should never have gone to trial in the first place. The so-called evidence against Anwar is so flimsy. As a professional, he should have advised the government that not only is it against the interests of justice, but it also makes a mockery of our judicial system.”
Desperate men will do anything to cling onto power, by whatever means available.
For men like Najib, truth is a rare commodity. Truth is a word that they often use when trying to convince us that they have the answer to our problems.
Two unknown male DNA profiles were found on a swab of Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan’s perianal region, the High Court was told in the Sodomy II trial today.
Government scientist Dr Seah Lay Hong, who was the sole expert witness to testify today, said she had detected a mixture of three male DNA profiles from swab stick “B5” said to be taken from the area just outside Saiful’s anus.
Of the three, she said her chemistry report dated July 7, 2008 found that one had matched Saiful’s bloodstain sample provided while a second matched the DNA profile of an unknown man she had earlier called “Male Y” who had also left semen stains on a pair of grey Levi’s briefs said to belong to Saiful.
Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s defence moved to cast doubt on a government scientist’s DNA profiling report today, claiming her analysis was too simple and incomplete.
Forensic scientist Dr Seah Lay Hong had determined that one of the male contributors of semen stains found on a pair of black trousers belonged to its owner, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, a former aide to Anwar.
Forensic scientist Dr Seah Lay Hong had determined that one of the male contributors of semen stains found on a pair of black trousers belonged to its owner, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, a former aide to Anwar.
Saiful had complained he was sodomised by his then-employer in a luxury condominium here three years ago.
“The probability of a coincidental match from a randomly selected, unrelated individual as calculated based on the population database of Malaysian Malays is one in 570 quadrillion,” Dr Seah had told the ongoing sodomy trial yesterday, while under questioning from the prosecution.
She added that the DNA profile from a swab of the semen stain on the trousers had matched Saiful’s DNA profile taken from his bloodstain sample.
She said she had performed the statistical evaluation calculations that yielded those results as it was important to make sure the DNA profile was Saiful’s and not someone else’s.
Today, the defence challenged that view.
Anwar’s lawyer, Ramkarpal Singh, asked Dr Seah if she had carried out the statistical evaluation to confirm a probability match of the other male DNA contributors.
She admitted she had not.
Ramkarpal then questioned if this meant she could not exclude the possibility of there being other male contributors in the samples she was given.
Two other male DNA profiles had been detected on swabs of Saiful’s perianal region and high rectal zones, but have not been identified in court yet.
Dr Seah told the court she had found a matching DNA profile of another male contributor that was not Saiful, between the semen stain found on the black trousers and a swab of Saiful’s high rectal zone.
She called this unknown male contributor “Male Y”.
She had also recorded the presence of a third male contributor in a swab of Saiful’s perianal region, which she said was also of unknown origin.
Referring to the results in a three-page summary of a Short Tandem Reaction (STR) test she had carried out, Ramkarpal pointedly asked if there could be other male contributors involved, based on the combination of the DNA fragment sequences.
He rattled off several sequence combinations to illustrate his point.
“You said 12, 13 is concordant with the complainant,” he said, referring to the numerical value accorded to Saiful at point “D8” in the printout of the STR test.
“What about 13, 15? 12, 14? 14, 15?” the lawyer pressed.
He said there appeared to be the possibility of eight other male contributors apart from Saiful and “Male Y” involved.
Dr Seah grudgingly admitted to the possibility, but stressed that the profiling of the number and identities of the contributor could not be evaluated based on just one locus, as the defence appeared to suggest.
Ramkarpal told reporters later that the defence sees Dr Seah’s DNA profiling analysis as incomplete.
“She’s doing it simply by looking at those graphs, but it’s a more complex process,” he said.
An Australian DNA expert, Dr Brian McDonald, was seen whispering frantically to the lawyers earlier this morning while the prosecution was carrying out its examination-in-chief.
Ramkarpal said that based on Dr Seah’s own STR test, there appeared to be a possibility of 10 contributors in total, and in order to exclude the other eight — she had already identified Saiful and “Male Y” — she must conduct a statistical evaluation.
“This is important. She admitted she only did one for A3, the trousers. And for that, she didn’t give us a copy of the report.
“Her analysis is not complete. She has to do more tests to be sure,” he said during a break in court proceedings.
The defence continued to interrogate Dr Seah over her analysis of the information of the DNA profiles, when trial resumed in the afternoon.
Ramkarpal suggested that she had not consistently followed international standards and guidelines, which was hotly rebutted by Dr Seah in the witness box.
Appearing somewhat flustered, she insisted that the Chemistry Department’s laboratory in Petaling Jaya had been accredited by several world bodies and passed muster, saying the systems used for genetic profiling work was up-to-date.
But Ramkarpal persisted in his questioning, asking her if she had adopted the guidelines set out by the International Society of Forensic Genetics — of which she was a member — in this case.
Dr Seah reluctantly admitted she had not, after trying to explain that each lab had its own benchmark methods.
“It was not employed in this case,” she said.
The defence team later explained to reporters that it needed to find out what methods Dr Seah used in her laboratory, if she had followed international guidelines and whether she had been consistent in adopting them to come to her conclusion.
The trial resumes at 8.30am on Monday.
The identities of the two male contributors have yet to be established in court.
Semen stains were also found on two spots on a black pair of his trousers.
But it was the presence of a third male on Saiful’s anal region that caused a stir in court today.
The university dropout, who had previously worked for Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, had complained his ex-boss had sodomised him at a luxury condominium in upper-class Bukit Damansara on June 26, 2008.
Saiful, now aged 25, has never named anyone else.
Dr Seah appeared hesitant to speculate about how a second mystery male DNA profile had been transferred to the perianal region, saying she was not an expert.
But when the prosecution pushed the question despite the defence lawyers’ objection, Dr Seah said it was mostly through a third-party contact and not directly.
She said it was possible for the DNA profile to transfer from another surface to Saiful’s perianal region; such as a through the backside’s contact with a common toilet seat.
Dr Seah also noted that two other swabs of Saiful’s rectal area showed the presence of a male DNA profile other than his own.
She said that another swab stick marked as “B7”, which was one of two taken from the high rectal area, showed that the mystery man Male Y’s DNA stamp there to be more dominant than Saiful’s own.
A second swab of the same area however revealed neither Male Y to be more dominant than Saiful or otherwise.
Dr Seah spent the afternoon expanding on an indepth analysis of her findings.
The court proceedings were abruptly halted less than two hours into the prosecution’s questioning of Dr Seah when the defence team informed the judge of yet another discrepancy in their copy of the 52-page detailed profiling report.
Judge Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd ordered the prosecution to hand over a proper copy before adjourning the trial to tomorrow at 8.30am.
The trial had been set back in its morning session when the defence team was supplied with a different version of a police document, triggering an outcry from Anwar’s side.
Anwar, the 63-year-old PKR de facto leader, is currently facing sodomy charges for the second time in his life.
The former deputy prime minister is charged with sodomising his former aide at Unit 11-5-1 of the Desa Damansara Condominium in Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara here between 3.01pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.
Anwar has denied the charge, describing it as “evil, frivolous lies by those in power” when the charge was read out to him.
He is charged under section 377B of the Penal Code and can be sentenced to a maximum of 20 years’ jail and whipping upon conviction.
The trial is taking place 18 months after Anwar was charged in court in August 2008.
He was charged with sodomy and corruption in 1998 after he was sacked from the Cabinet and was later convicted and jailed for both offences.
He was freed in September 2004 and later resurrected his political career by winning back his Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat in a by-election in 2008, which had been held in the interim by his wife.
He had three years ago led the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat, to a historic sweep of five states and 82 parliamentary seats in Election 2008.
No comments:
Post a Comment