UPDATED
By Debra Chong and Edward CheahPUTRAJAYA, July 2 – Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, already facing a political crisis as his Pakatan Rakyat (PR) partners continue a very public argument, failed in his bid today to shift his Sodomy II trial back to the sessions court.
He will face what he has claimed is a politically-motivated sodomy charge, his second in 10 years, in the High Court instead. Barring any further challenges, the trial is set to start next week.
“I am very disgusted with the decision by the Court of Appeal. Listening to the grounds, I am perturbed that the assurance given by the former prime minister Tun Abdullah Badawi that the AG would not be involved does not mean anything,” Anwar told reporters here in an immediate reaction.
The Opposition Leader, who sat in the front row of the public gallery inside the courtroom, seemed rather agitated while Justice Datuk Abdull Hamid Embong read out the judgment on behalf of his brother judges.
He repeatedly shook his head and muttered “No, no, no!” in a low voice when Justice Abdull Hamid stressed there was no proof or any doubt that Anwar would not get a fair trial in the High Court.
The former deputy prime minister twisted his lips in a bitter smile when the bespectacled judge remarked that the judgment would likely be unpopular and “would attract critics, commentators and detractors.”
“For sure, for sure,” Anwar said, nodding his head emphatically
The Court of Appeal today dismissed Anwar’s appeal against a Kuala Lumpur High Court decision to hold the sodomy trial there instead of at the Sessions Court.
The three judges unanimously upheld the High Court decision, centred on the controversial certificate of transfer signed by the Attorney-General (AG) Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, to be valid.
Anwar had challenged the certificate, a routine procedure to transfer the case to the High Court, in what was an obvious attempt to highlight his accusations against Abdul Gani and the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan for allegedly fabricating evidence against him in his black-eye beating case 11 years ago.
In their grounds, the Court of Appeal noted that the Sessions Court had acted beyond its powers last November when it rejected the certificate signed by Abdul Gani simply because of a promise made privately by the prime minister to Anwar’s wife and daughter.
“In our view, the PM is not the competent authority on matters concerning criminal prosecutions in our country,” Justice Abdull Hamid said.
The judges pointed out that the only person in any position to make such promises is the AG himself, as laid down in Article 145(3) and (3A) of the Federal Constitution (FC).
“No member of the executive, not even the PM can interfere or fetter with this independent power of the PP in respect of prosecutions.
“The PP who double-roles as the AG may be administratively answerable to the PM but certainly not in the area of prosecution which the FC and indeed the public demands that he exercises independent of any external interference or barriers,” the judge stressed.
They agreed with the public prosecutor’s arguments that Abdul Gani was only doing his “administrative” duty as laid out in the Federal Constitution and not out of bias against Anwar.
The judges noted that the law under Section 418A gives the AG as the Public Prosecutor (PP) the power to transfer any case to any court of his choice without having to give any reason at all.
“This power is personal to the PP and only he may exercise it,” Justice Abdull Hamid explained.
“When faced with such a certificate, the subordinate court has no choice but to dutifully comply,” he added.
Asked afterwards if he thought he would get a fair trial, Anwar said: “It remains to be seen. I would be completely naïve to imagine that nothing will be done, no conspiracy, no harassment, no fabrication in this case.”
Tomorrow, the High Court in Kuala Lumpur will hear Anwar’s bid to get evidence he claims the prosecutors are withholding from him.
Anwar’s lawyer Sankara Nair told reporters such moves like blocking access to information suggest the federal lawmaker is already a victim of interference.
“If we are going to start process of trial on that basis alone, then how can we be assured that my client will receive a fair trial?” Sankara questioned.
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
