Thursday, October 30, 2014

New fact for longer prison term


PUTRAJAYA, Oct 30 — Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah said today the defence in Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy case had only presented “partial facts” during their three days of submissions for his appeal.

Shafee, who is leading the prosecution team, said he will present the facts when he takes his turn for submissions tomorrow, and that 15 per cent of his arguments will be new.

“I will start with facts because partial facts given by defence team,” he told reporters at the Federal Court today.

Earlier during the appeal hearing, Shafee urged the court for more time before he proceeds with submissions tomorrow, saying he needs to peruse the arguments presented by the appellant’s team.

Shafee told the five-man panel of judges that he was up till 4am this morning reading Anwar’s lawyers’ submissions, and complained that Ramkarpal Singh’s submissions had used very small fonts.

Court was then adjourned to tomorrow. The respondent is expected to take all of tomorrow to reply, while the appellant is slated to reply next Monday.

During submissions over the past three days, Anwar’s lawyers took turns dissecting the Court of Appeal’s reasons for convicting their client of sodomy in March this year.

The lawyers took apart the prosecution’s case and cast doubt over the DNA evidence that the appellate court had relied on when deciding Anwar’s fate.

Anwar’s lead counsel, former Federal Court judge Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram said that the appellate court should have evaluated Sodomy II complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan’s statements to determine if the alleged act of sodomy had been forced or consensual.

He said during submissions on Tuesday that there were reasonable grounds to explore the matter as although the alleged sodomy act was said to have been non-consensual, the actual charge was not framed in such a manner.

Defence counsel Sangeet Deo Kaur also poured doubt on the “Male Y” DNA sample taken from items that Anwar allegedly used while in lockup in 2008, saying evidence linking it to the Opposition Leader were merely “circumstantial”

She said that although the samples taken from the toothbrush, the “Good Morning” towel and mineral water bottle were said to be Anwar’s, there was no clear proof that he had used the items.

Yesterday, lawyer Ramkarpal Singh questioned why the notes and documents that the government’s DNA expert had relied on in her Sodomy II testimony were neither tendered as evidence nor supplied to Anwar’s defence team during trial.

This, he told the five-man panel at the Federal Court, had created a major “handicap” in their case.

Today, Ramkarpal said the Court of Appeal had failed to consider the possibility that the DNA samples used to convict Anwar of sodomy had been tampered with by then-investigating officer Jude Pereira.

He said the appellate court had erred when it accepted Pereira’s explanation as gospel truth.

Ramkarpal also said that the three doctors from Hospital Kuala Lumpur who examined Saiful had merely “assumed” that penile penetration had taken place.

He the doctors’ findings, as well as that of Hospital Pusrawi’s Dr Mohd Osman Abdul Hamid, had shown no conclusive physical proof of such penetration.

Ramkarpal was the fourth lawyer in Anwar’s defence team to submit in court.

Anwar was held overnight from July 16 to 17, from 11.05pm to 12.30pm, in 2008, after being arrested for allegedly sodomising his former aide Saiful.

Samples taken from the toothbrush, mineral water bottle and “good morning” towel that were given to Anwar during his jail stint were later used to match the DNA samples taken from Saiful.

During trial in 2011, government chemist Nor Aidora had testified that there were two DNA profiles found on the evidence samples – that of “Male Y” and that of an unknown DNA profile.

The chemist had also testified that the DNA profiles found on the items match those whose sperm extracts had been found on Saiful’s anus earlier.

The Federal Court is now hearing Anwar’s challenge of the Court of Appeal’s decision to overturn a lower court’s decision to acquit him of the charge.

The High Court had in 2012 acquitted Anwar of the 2008 charge but the appellate court ruled on March 7 this year that the trial judge had erred when rejecting the DNA evidence produced in the case.

Anwar has repeatedly maintained his innocence, insisting that the charges were trumped up to kill his political career as he allegedly poses a threat to the Barisan Nasional coalition’s decades-long rule with the Pakatan Rakyat alliance, which he now leads.

If Anwar fails to reverse his five-year imprisonment sentence and conviction in the Federal Court, he would lose his seat as the law bars anyone fined RM2,000 or imprisoned for one year from serving as a lawmaker.

Today’s hearing was presided over by a five-member panel led by Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria. Others include Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif and Federal Court judges Tan Sri Abdul Hamid Embong, Tan Sri Suriyadi Halim Omar and Datuk Ramly Ali, who replaced Tan Sri Ahmad Maarop.

Anwar is represented by a 14-man defence team led by former Federal Court judge Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram. Others include lawyers R. Sivarasa, Latheefa Koya, N. Surendran and Gobind Singh Deo.

Lawyers from the prosecution team are Shafee and Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Mohamad Hanafiah Zakaria.

- See more at:

Rancangan halang pintu dan laluan ke penjara


... AMK sedang mengatur perancangan membuat halangan semasa hakim membacakan keputusan hukuman ke atas Anwar Ibrahim.

Jonah akan mengetuai sepasukan AMK yang akan menimbulkan huru-hara setelah satu lagi kumpulan yang belum lagi diketahui siapa ketuanya tetapi dipercayai Tian Chua sendiri, akan membuat provokasi dan mengganggu anggota-anggota polis yang bertugas.

Pasukan AMK yang dipimpin oleh Jonah akan bertempur dengan pihak polis untuk menghalang Anwar Ibrahim daripada dibawa ke penjara. 

Kumpulan provokasi kedua pula akan selepas 'mengganggu dan menyibukkan polis' dengan serangan kumpulan yang diketuai oleh Jonah, akan menghalang laluan yang akan digunakan oleh pihak berkuasa bagi membawa Anwar ke penjara.

Manakala kumpulan penyokong yang lain, yang sekarang ini sedang giat dikumpulkan menjelang tempoh 96 jam, akan dikumpulkan di hadapan Istana Kehakiman untuk menimbulkan kekecohan selain mengalihkan perhatian ...

Baca sepenuh di Bulletin Sengal SINI

Kenapa Ronnie Liew dibenarkan masuk?


Macam mana Ronnie Liew dibenarkan masuk?

Dia bukan ahli musik? Peguam pun tak? Akuantan lagi? Doktor ke? Gangster? ...

Semalam ditolak masuk ....

Solat pun Mak Lampir guna untuk politik


Solat berniat untuk apa?

Another credible Bar Council needed


The Bar Council’s silence on Sri Ram is deafening – Lukman Sheriff Alias and others

Published: 29 October 2014

When the matter came for its first day of hearing at the Federal Court yesterday (October 28, 2014), it is interesting to note the full list of counsels appearing for Datuk Sri Anwar Ibrahim for his final appeal against the Court of Appeal’s sodomy conviction. Leading the long list of 14 lawyers was former judge of the Federal Court, Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram.

While as of to date there is no specific law that bars former judges from appearing in Court, the Malaysian Bar had however just seven months ago in its 68th Annual General Meeting held on March 15, 2014, passed a resolution calling for the prohibition of retired judges of superior courts from appearing as counsels. In the said motion that was passed by majority vote, it was made clear that one of the fundamental principles of the Malaysian legal system is that not only must justice be done, it must also be seen to be done, and thus appearances matter.

In this regard, it was agreed upon based on the said resolution, “that it is a principle of antiquity in common law jurisdiction that a retired judge of a superior court should not practice as counsel before the judges who were previously his colleagues or his juniors to him on the Bench”, since “such conduct may have the effect of intimidating the Bench, and worse, it could give the perception that the said retired judge/counsel and his client have an advantage over other counsel and adverse parties.”

Thus it is indeed a cause for concern when Sri Ram appeared as counsel before the panel judges of the Federal Court, who were clearly his former peers and juniors on the Bench. This is a clear breach of the long held tradition and convention that has been observed and honoured by members of the legal fraternity until recent years. As stated clearly and unequivocally in the said resolution, this may not only affect the public perception of the administration of justice in Malaysia, but also cause conflict when the retired judge/counsel relies on or distinguishes decisions made by him while he was on the Bench; and worse still situations may arise where such retired judges invoke the principle of stare decisis to submit that the Court is bound by grounds of judgment of  his handed down when he was a judge.

Adding salt to injury is the fact that as at the time of writing, the Bar Council has yet to make a stand on the issue. This failure to issue a statement against Sri Ram’s appearance as counsel yesterday and to act swiftly is indeed deafening, and nothing short of dumbfounding, considering that the Bar has, based on its previous undertakings, prided themselves for ostensibly being protectors of justice without fear or favour, and are always on their toes to bark against any such infringements, especially against certain parties.

That is not to mention that the Council’s silence on the issue is also a clear non-compliance of the Malaysian Bar’s resolution resolving that the Bar Council shall take all reasonable steps to educate the public on the reasons why it took such stance against retired judges. It is indeed cause for concern as  the failure of the Bar shows how selective and biased they are in upholding justice, and raises pertinent questions as to whether  the whole Bar must now be reformed.

It is also noteworthy that a news portal had even reported that Anwar has said that it was Sri Ram who approached Anwar instead of the other way around, which, if such were true, might be further cause for investigation for an infringement of the non-touting rule under Rule 51 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978. – October 29, 2014.

*Lukman Sheriff Alias is a lawyer practising in Kuala Lumpur, while Aidil Khalid and Faidhur Rahman Abdul Hadi are lawyers practising in Kota Damansara, Selangor, and Hartamas Heights, Kuala Lumpur, respectively and  are activists for Concerned Lawyers for Justice (CLJ).

*This is the personal opinion of the writers or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.


Maybe it’s time we ignore the Malaysian Bar’s resolutions – Faidhur Rahman Abdul Hadi

Published: 29 October 2014

According to a news portal, lawyer and Bar Council member Syahredzan Johan, in response to mounting criticism over the Malaysian Bar's silence over ex-Federal Court judge Gopal Sri Ram's representation of Anwar Ibrahim, took to social media defending this silence, saying, among others that a resolution passed against ex-judges appearing as counsels in courts did not impose a restriction on retired judges and was not meant to be a constraint.
It is therefore, according to him, non-binding and unenforceable.

No doubt resolutions passed by the Malaysian Bar are not law and cannot be enforced. But such resolutions are supposed to be statements of intent, issued purportedly to represent the views of the legal profession as a whole, particularly when passed at Annual General Meetings or Extraordinary General Meetings, when all members of the Bar have the opportunity to attend, voice their views and vote thereon.

Only this month we have witnessed the Malaysian Bar's so-called "Walk for Peace and Freedom" which itself is organised pursuant to a resolution passed by the Bar Council at an Extraordinary General Meeting held on September 29, 2014.

The resolution describes the Sedition Act 1948 as draconian, inhibiting freedom of speech and not right for this present day and age. The resolution also calls on members of the Bar to pressure the Malaysian government to hold to its previous alleged undertaking to repeal the Act, and decries the government's inaction over this undertaking. But this resolution is non-binding and unenforceable too, isn't it? Is it to be ignored as well?

The question that begs the most answer to now is, does the Malaysian Bar, and do members of the current Bar Council in particular, have any credibility left within them?

It does not take much to see that they don't. On one hand, the Bar Council wants the Sedition Act 1948 repealed. It set up and supported the #MansuhkanAktaHasutan campaign, led by non-other than Syahredzan himself. It has, via its president, Mr Christopher Leong, in particular, issued numerous statements against the continued use of the Sedition Act.

It has also convened a special EGM tabling a resolution calling for the Act's repeal, and pursuant to the resolution, passed by 701 Malaysian Bar members who represent a mere 4% of the total practising lawyers in Malaysia, who number some 15,000, it has organised a walk against the Sedition Act, and has even enlisted the support of copious international bar associations, from the Law Society of Australia to the American Bar Association, as well as international legal organisations such as LAWASIA and the Commonwealth Law Association, to support its cause.

On the other hand, the Bar Council, consisting of the very same members who now sit therein, earlier, in this very year itself, 2014, passed a resolution at the Annual General Meeting on March 5, against the practice of ex-members of the Bench appearing as counsel before the Judiciary of which they themselves were once members of and now says that such resolutions are non-binding, unenforceable and to be ignored.

By the way, I note that Syahredzan made it clear he is not speaking on behalf of the Bar Council, but being a member thereof, his statement would, especially in the context it was given, have effect nonetheless as representing the views of the Bar Council, especially when its president continues to maintain his silence on this matter.

Double standards and hypocrisy much?

Perhaps the rest of us practising lawyers should take the cue and start ignoring Malaysian Bar resolutions. After all, if they won't be respected by the office bearers themselves, then why should we?

We have businesses to run and families to feed. We don't have time for the games the Bar Council wants us to play and in any event, the resolutions are, in their words "not meant to be a constraint".

So, fellow members of the Bar, the next time a notice of AGM or EGM arrives on your firm's doorstep, urging your attendance at the next meeting and your vote in favour of any resolution, do yourself a favour instead and toss it aside.

That is the treatment that the Bar Council gave its own resolution on ex-judges appearing as counsel, that is also the treatment we should give the resolution against the Sedition Act, and that, my learned friends, is what we should tell the Bar what we think of their resolutions. – October 29, 2014.

* Faidhur Rahman Abdul Hadi reads The Malaysian Insider.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.

LIVE from Putrajaya: Tak peduli keadilan, atau kebenaran ...asal Anwar lepas


Jam 1300: Mahkamah bersambung esuk 9 pagi

Jam 1240: Ram Karpal punya penutup mencermina semua. Dia tak peduli pada keadilan, atau kebenaran. Asal pihak pendkawa silap dia boleh lepaskan anwar .

Jam 1230: Ramkarpal persoalkan ahli Kimia Negara

Jam 1220: Semalam ustaz khalwat, hari ini Jingga 13 Fariz Musa mengepalai 25 orang baca yaasin. Hmmm ... dia tak high pil kuda ke?

Anwar dah nazak kot ....

Jam 1200; Usaha Ram Karpal fault finding kini kata mesti ada tanda pasal Anwar rakus. Dia tak percaya tiada bekas. Tapi Gopal kata guna KY Jelly tak sakit. Dah rakus ... mesti sakit.

"Can I Fuck You Today?", Anwar boleh tanya Ram Karpal yang tak kahwin-kahwin

Jam 1100: Rampakrpal masih cuba mainkan hujah dr Osman Pusrawi yang mana dia bukan ada authority untuk komen tentang isu jenayah.

Jam 1040: Masih recycle hujah lama tentang tampering. Sampel di letak dalam plastic ikut standard amalan. Untuk precaution, di masuk dalam satu lagi plastik. Yang terbuka cuma plastik kedua ... auta

Jam 1030: Ramkarpal jelas kata hanya mencari kesalhan teknikal dan tugas dia menumpukan kepad aisu analisa teknikal

Jam 1020: Rafizi hina mahkamah di SINI.

 Seorang pelajar law pula ugut polis dan mahkamah SINI

Jam 1030: PAS protes kedatangan Khalid Samad ke POJ dan bukan ke KT

Jam 1025: Sesatwan Negara sampai lambat

Jam 0905: Peliwat negara sampai. Khabarnya Wan Azizah hantar SMS mintak buatkan Yaasin:

 Assalamualaikum wrwb dan salam sejahtera rakan2 MPN: Assalamualaikum wrwb ustaz mutallib, Kak Wan kata mahkamah akan putuskan hari ni sebab banyak sangat polis dan mohon tolong baca yassin dan doa mohon pertolongan Allah SWT untuk lembutkan hati2 hakim dan org2 yg berkuasa dan mohon Allah SWT permudahkan aamiin.

Dia tak percaya Yaasin yang dibuat pengkhalwat negara "Ustaz" Badrul Amin. Akhirnya 50 orang saja datang hari ini.

Jam 0840: Pihak berkuasa bersedia

Jam 0900: Nampaknya hanya 50 orang saja yang ada di luar POJ

Jam 0832 : POJ nampak lengang. Cuma kelihatan wartawan dan cameraman saja.

Jam 0830: Tali kuning dililit halang orang menjaja dan berniaga.

Jam 0815: Ada dalam 10 orang penyokong liwat

Jam 0750. Dalam masjid besi, tak nampak bas2 dan penyokong. Kosong ...

Bapa suka sama suka, Ijah di m syariah dan mak cari surat sokongan


Anwar di mahkamah sedang cuba nak mengharap 46 isu kecil dan besar dapat "create doubt" bahawa dia suka sama suka.

Nurul pula di mahkamah syariah dan kini suami kata dia tak mahu lepaskan ...jam.

Si ibu KIPAS pula sedang cari surat sokongan ....

Berikut dari John Espesito

Al Waleed Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (AMCU) mahu Anwar di bebaskan. Siapa dibelakang ACMU?

Penyumbang utama AMCU adalah Wahabi Saudi yang bersekongkol dengan US dan ISrael. Mereka membawa agenda liberalisme dan pluralisme agama dimana Anwar salah sorang tenaga pensyarah dan think tank.

Wahabi campurtangan dalam isu Anwar melalui AMCU. John Esposito adalah sarjana orientalis yang merupakan Penasihat bagi Dasar Luar White House berhubung negara islam. Beliau mahir dalam ugama Kristian, Islam dan Buddha. Esposito pun anak murid Prof Ismail Faruqi yang ditembak israel kerana betray taukeh zionistnya.

Wan Azizah cari sokongan dari wahabi dan zionist.


Penghargaan kepada khas Anwar Ibrahim yang disebut di dalam buku Building Moderate Muslim Networks.

Obama dah tak mahu bantu Anwar. Amerika mau kuda lain. Baca MyMassa SINi

Kesian Hadi bila ada orang PAS utamakan berada di Putrajaya dari di KT

Bagi Hadi ....

....mungkin nasib lebih baik. Azan Ismail semalam tak boleh cakap dengan jelas dimana disebut nama ahli PKR itu???? Baca MyMass SINI

Bungkus lah PKR di Terengganu!!!!

Pasti retak lepas ni ... MyKMU SINI

Harris Ibrahim bantu Rejimen Anarki lari untuk jatuhkan institusi raja


Dulu memang Harris Ibrahim dan kumpulan kiri untuk larikan Lina Joy dan lain-lain kes Melayu murtad ke luar negara. Kini tangannya dikesan membantu larikan ALvin Tan dan Rejimen anarki.

Lihat berikut:

Padan confident budak ni ... tak takut dan risau.

Nampaknya ada pihak membantu mahu bakar semangat untuk lawan dan runtuhkan institusi raja ...

Harris Ibrahim ini adalah anarkis tetapi kenapa dia, Hishamuddin Rais dll boleh dibiarkan bebes???


Get your volunteer initiatve funded!

Link2Me WeLinkBk (254)