KUALA LUMPUR: Karpal Singh, who leads Anwar Ibrahim’s defence team, took the Umno-linked prosecution lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah to task for maligning Anwar this morning in the Sodomy 2 appeal.
Shafee had earlier today criticised Anwar in court for making his statement from the dock rather than the witness stand during the trial.
The Court of Appeal earlier today heard the prosecution team’s appeal on PKR supremo Anwar Ibrahim’s acquittal from the High court last year on the charge of sodomising his former aide, Saiful Bukhari Azlan.
Presiding the case are Justices Balia Yusof Haji Wahi, Aziah Ali and Mohd Zawawi Salleh. Lawyer Karpal Singh is leading Anwar’s defence team. Anwar failed three times in his bid to disqualify Umno linked lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah from leading the prosecution team.
On Jan 9, 2012, Anwar, now 66, was acquitted by the High Court of a charge of sodomising his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan at a condominium unit in Bukit Damansara in 2008.
Karpal told the court that : “An accused person… may remain silent. These are his subjective rights. Anwar chose what is his right to make a statement from the dock. The prosecution shouldn’t be allowed to make any remarks to posion the courts’ mind.
“Shafee owes more than an apology to Anwar for maligning him just now.”
Karpal also contended that the DNA sample was compromised because investigating officer Jude Pereira had failed to place the evidence in the freezer as ordered by chemist Dr Seah Lay Hong.
He said that Pereira had acknowledged during the Sodomy 2 trial that the samples may degrade because it had not been placed in the freezer.
“[Pereira's] answer certainly reflects that he knew the samples had to be preserved,” added Karpal.
Karpal stressed that on that ground alone, the appeal should be dismissed.
“The learned trial judge adequately dealt with the basic structure of case against Anwar Ibrahim.”
Karpal also cast doubts on the testimony of Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, whom he described as “the star witness”.
He noted that while Saiful was “no country bumpkin”, having studied in college and later offered a degree in electrical engineering, yet the latter delayed lodging a police report against Anwar for two days.
Karpal pointed out that Saiful also first told Dr Mohamad Osman Abdul Hamid when seeking treatment at the Pusrawi Hospital that he had been assaulted and plastic object had been inserted into his anus.
But Saiful changed the account of the events when he lodged the police report, Karpal reminded the appellate court.
The third man
Meanwhile, Anwar’s counsel Ram Karpal submitted that the DNA samples the chemists had examined were either contaminated or illegally obtained.
“All parties agreed there was contamination of B5 (the swab of Saiful’s perianal), even PW5 (Prosecution Witness Dr Seah Lay Hong, chemist) agreed to this,” Karpal told the appellate court.
“There was another male contributor (found on the swab). So one of the samples at least was contaminated by a third person,” he said.
“This is not in dispute.”
Evidence B9 (the swab of Saiful’s lower rectum), meanwhile, was also found to have a third, male contributor.
“Meaning perhaps the complainant was penetrated by a third party. That (possibility) has not been excluded,” said Ram.
“From the evidence, it’s certainly contaminated.”
He further added that one of the chemists’ duty was to identify “Male 1″ based on a toothbrush and face towel seized from Anwar’s lockup.
“If the court views that the items obtained during lockup were illegaly obtained, then there would be no identification of Male 1. If that’s the case, the entire identification by the prosecution is flawed,” said Ram.
Ram also raised the possibility that the semen samples taken from Saiful’s rectum were not the same samples presented to the chemists for examination.
He said that the semen samples were only obtained from Saiful’s anus 36 hours after the alleged incident, and it spent another one day and a half in a cabinet before the chemist examined it.
He pointed out that even though Pereira had subjected the samples to possible degradation due to his failure to store it in a freezer, the chemist later said the samples were in pristine condition when they examined it.
“There is a possibility that this is not the same samples retrieved from PW1 (Saiful). You would expect degradation, but it was not present,” said Ram.
Hearing continues tomorrow
