Laman Webantu   KM2A1: 2530 File Size: 8.3 Kb *

Fwd: Harakah - Jaka judgement flaw - Kim Quek
By web aNtu

11/8/2000 1:21 am Fri

Source: 10.08.2000

Justice Arifin Jaka's Summary Judgment is a total fiasco. In his sketchy
Judgment, the handful of grounds on which Arifin convicted Anwar is mostly
either untrue or illogical.

In his opening statement, Arifin rightly pointed out that's the Prosecution's
case rests principally on the evidence of Azizan, and the Defence case on alibi
and conspiracy to fabricate evidence.

Arifin was also right in stating that Azizan's credibility was vital to this trial.

Regrettably, the above statements are about the only things stated correctly by
Arifin in the entire Judgment.


A main thrust of Arifin's Judgment was that Azizan's evidence was
corroborated by Sukma's confession. This claim was untrue. Firstly, Sukma's
confession in Sept 98 contradicted Azizan's evidence, in that Sukma's
confession stated that s###my in his Tivoli apartment took place about's two or
three years ago (meaning 95 or 96) (Star 29.07.99), while the alleged offence
in this trial is between Jan and Mar 93.

Secondly, the Defence alleged that Sukma's confession was a fabrication forced
upon Sukma by the police for the purpose of incriminating Anwar. Goring
details of physical and mental torture over a 12-day period in Sept 98 was
given by Sukma in the first instant available to him in his affidavit dated 10th
Dec 98, and also later in his testimony in this trial. Defence also produced the
following unchallenged evidence to disprove the accuracy of the's confession
thereby reinforcing its allegation that the 's confession' was fabricated under
coercion:'P Sukma 's confession stated that he drove Anwar from his official
residence to the Tivoli apartment for the s###my rendezvous (Star 29.07.99),
but Anwar did not move into his official residence until mid 94.

Contrary to Sukma's story in the's confession, Anwar did not share a bed
room with Sukma in the house of Anwar's father in Petaling Jaya, but an
Indonesian student Hermawan Bustaman did. Also, Anwar never stayed in
Section 17 of Petaling Jaya as claimed in the's confession.

Sukma stated in the's confession that his last sexual encounter with Anwar
was in March or April 98, but forensic pathologist Dr. Zahari Noor concluded
that there were no physical signs on his private parts that he had homosexual
activities', after a thorough examination on Sukma. (Star 07.07.99) In spite of
the above evidences, Arifin said, 'I am convinced of the truth of what is
stated in the confession'.

Arifin further said, "This finding is consistent with the facts that Sukma had
used this confession in his mitigation when he had pleaded guilty earlier in the
Sessions Court, when he was charged with an offence in Section 377D of the
Penal Code.

In making the above statement, Arifin failed again to deal with Sukma's
testimony that using the confession to plead for leniency was something
pre-planned by SAC(I) Musa. Arfin also commended Azizan's credibility as a
witness, saying that the latter's came out unscathed' after a grueling
cross-examination, and that's there is no necessity for Azizan to lie as he had
nothing to gain but everything to loose by coming out with this complaint.

These statements are manifestly untrue. Azizan oscillated many times under oath
between's he was s###mised and's he was not s###mised by Anwar, and
between's he was instructed and's he was not instructed by the police' to
change the date of the alleged offence from the first date to the second to the

In fact Arifin himself was often exasperated by Azizan's frequent shifting
testimony, prompting Arifin to say on record:'s This witness is saying one thing
today and another thing tomorrow. Arifin also said's This witness refuses to
answer even simple questions'.

Azizan 's credibility as a witness took another serious blow when he was later
convicted and jailed in a Syariah Court for committing illicit sex, after having
admitted he had lied earlier in the same Court. Arifin's claim that Azizan's has
nothing to gain' blatantly contradicted unchallenged evidence in court that
Azizan, a former driver, was made an executive and a director of a company and
was given a car, soon after he accused Anwar of s###mising him.


Arifin said Defence's alibi failed because Anwar did not give his whereabouts
between lst Jan to 12th Feb. The truth is Anwar's unchallenged alibi covered
from 4th Feb to 31st Mar. As for the period 1st Jan to 3rd Feb, Defence had
produced unchallenged evidence that the apartment then was under heavy
renovation and that the mattresses to the rooms were moved in only on 12th
Feb. Arifin now said,'s even if the divan and mattress were not delivered until
Feb 12, 1993, to my mind it does not mean that there was no other bed and

This speculation by Arifin is not feasible, as the ceilings and wall between the
master bedroom and the adjoining room was broken down during the
renovation, and the broken bricks and ceilings had to be deposited in the third
and only remaining room in the apartment, leaving no space for the queen sized
bed described by Azizan to be accomodated there. Arifin's rejection of Defence
alibi is therefore faulted.


Defence had produced witnesses to substantiate the motive, identify the
individuals and describe the activities, involving politicians, diplomats, police and ordinary citizens in the fabrication of evidence and the plotting
of Anwar's downfall.

Arifin had not come up with any challenge to these evidences in his
Judgment. Instead, he said:'s with regards to the defence of fabrication, I am
satisfied that the evidence on record does not support the defence.

The evidence of Tun Hanif Omar on the question asked by the first accused on
the possibility of blackmailing him, indicates that the first accused had
something to worry about. The evidence of Azizan, when he said the first
accused asked him to lie on the declaration and when the first accused asked
SAC(I) Musa to stop investigations against him, militates against the defence of
fabrication of evidence.

Arifin 's above statement is a mouthful of skew logic. There is not an iota of
evidence from the above witnesses to negate the well-knit and unchallenged
evidence of political conspiracy and fabrication as constructed earlier by the
Defence. The abovementioned evidences of Hanif, Azizan and Musa are totally
unrelated to the issue of conspiracy and fabrication.

A part from being unrelated to fabrication, the pivotal significance attached by
Arifin to these evidences is also not justified. Azizan is a discredited witness,
and his a#sertion that Anwar asked him to lie cannot be trusted without
corroboration. Musa has played a mirky and questionable role in the entire
investigation of these cases. His part in fixing and changing the various dates
of offence was hardly disguised.

The evidences submitted by Musa and Hanif could at best be taken by
Prosecution to cast suspicion on Anwar's homosexual status, but could in no
way be looked upon as proof beyond reasonable doubt that Anwar had
committed homosexual act in the Tivoli apartment between Jan and Mar 93.


Arifin has failed to justify his verdict that the Prosecution has proven the
offence beyond reasonable doubt in that

1.He has not successfully restored confidence to the Prosecution case which
was fatally marred earlier during the trial, due to unjustifiable
inconsistencies in the dates of the offence and in questionable evidence given
by the principal witness Azizan.

2. He has not succeeded in challenging Defence's alibi and Defence 's evidence
of conspiracy and fabrication of evidence against the accused.

Kim Quek

Link Reference : Malaysiakini patut belajar dari AOL - baca macam2 kes prejudis