Anwar Ibrahim at the Court today

Looks like it…

Has the law become an ass?

FEB 10 2010— For an event with only two outcomes, there is a 50-50 chance of it happening either way. So you would have thought. Consequently, many wanted the verdict of 9 February of the country’s top judges in the apex court to reflect that logical outcome. More so in a constitutional impasse that has drawn attention of the entire nation, nay the entire world.

But wouldn’t it be a wishful thinking to have ever thought that MB Nizar would win? Yes, perhaps, given the state of our very-much-to-be-desired judiciary. But in a not-so-clear-a-case like this acrimonious debate, you still harbour a little hope for a close call at least.

When the federal court returned a verdict of a thrashing 5-0 win to MB Zambry, you can’t blame the many that have alleged that the law has truly become an ass. I could still recall MB Nizar wanted a full 9-member bench. The country has just been saved from being humiliated, the greatest shame of the century with a 9-0 verdict!

In the same vein, imagine the battle of two titans in a world cup with an outcome of 5-0 win. Now imagine a 9-0 win. Mind-shattering, too bizarre! That’s exactly the state of affairs in our beloved country right now, Mr PM. Beleaguered.

It’s most pathetic to have heard you, Mr PM, say, “let’s accept the court’s verdict and move on”. That was your knee-jerk response as usual, nothing really go high up beyond your brain-stem. You have ‘to say something’ each time and you did. But true leaders have really ‘something to say’, regrettably, you didn’t.

We shall wait in anticipation, for the time when the rakyat will one day tell you to just accept the verdict of the election, Najib ie your defeat, and move on. It may not be the next 13th GE as yet. But it could well be. You and your First Lady must pack your bags and get out of Putrajaya.

If you could gladly and heartily accept the verdict of that election that makes you the man who has led one of the world’s longest-governing parties to defeat, perhaps we might reconsider our revulsion and disgust to this verdict. Perhaps we could emulate your magnanimity and grace. But could you accept defeat and just move on?

Be that as it may, the country has got to absorb the far-reaching implications of this verdict. Cynicism aside, I now write with a bipartisan interest, with the Federal Constitution (FC), the nation and the rakyat at heart.

Of the many implications, this piece is only highlighting one. But this one implication must be unequivocally and categorically said as it is the one that revises and transforms the FC through a backdoor manner of sort.

Never before had I wished to have a doctorate in law, only when ‘lawlessness’ and the assault on the FC have reached levels that were previously unimaginable. Yes, the verdict has outrightly disfigured the notion or doctrine of a constitutional monarchy.

Amidst their euphoria, the BN leaders seemed oblivious of the full import of the verdict. With the judgment by none other than the top judges of the apex court of the country, the principles governing a vibrant and functional parliamentary democracy is seriously challenged and critically compromised.

Do judges really understand the concept of responsible government, where it is a conception of a system of government that embodies the principle of parliamentary accountability responsible to parliament (and if bicameral, primarily to The Dewan Rakyat, which is directly elected, and thus more representative than the Dewan Negara) rather than to the monarch, or, in the colonial context, to the imperial government.

The apex court has added another case to a list of cases that contravenes the very notion of constitutionalism and representative democracy, the very heartbeat of the FC. That the Monarch could refuse the appointment of a Menteri Besar chosen by the party in power is admittedly arguable as in Terengganu. That didn’t directly impinge and intrude on the practice of democracy but more appropriately to save democracy.

But if the Monarch could now dismiss the lawful Menteri Besar (and by so doing brings down a government i.e. causing a regime change) if he so chooses, one that is democratically elected and appointed by the people, this is totally not analogous and different from the former.

In very plain English, the Federal Court affirmed the role played by Sultan Azlan Shah in the change of government in Perak a year ago. The apex court concurred with the appellate court’s ruling that MB Nizar must resign after failing to get the Perak Sultan to dissolve the state assembly to pave the way for fresh elections.

It was the Sultan who interviewed the three elected representatives who resigned from Pakatan Rakyat and concluded that MB Nizar had lost the confidence of the state assembly. Incidentally, two of the three assemblymen were under indictment for corruption.

In the true spirit of a responsible government and a country that upholds constitutional monarchy, renowned constitutional law experts from Malaysia and abroad, had critically opined that the proper forum to test a motion of no confidence should be the legislative assembly. The judges were also quick to penalise Nizar’s lawyers on a technical ground of not resorting to the right provision in their submission. But judges of such stature surely need no reminders from lay people to see the bigger picture of constitutionalism and its underpinning objectives.

The court in this instance has added another case to a list of cases that contravenes the idea of constitutionalism and democracy, which stand at the very heart of the FC. That is actually the bone of contention in this debate.

The intervention of the royal household indeed invited scorn from Malaysians and subsequently embroiled the Monarch and the palace into disrepute. This is most regrettable much as it is disfiguring the notion of a constitutional monarchy. But the powers-that-be are not concern as long as they could achieve their political ends. In simple plain English again, theirs have now become a government appointed by the Monarch, not elected by the people.

Has the anger and disappointment with the palace gone away? No. The Merdeka Center survey shows clearly that a significant percentage of the people of Perak are dissatisfied with the role played by the palace in the Perak power grab.

Some 74 per cent of voters in Perak felt that elections remain the best way to end the impasse in the state. In the same survey conducted by Merdeka Center, voters were asked to choose which they preferred: a. the economy or b. having a democratically-elected government. Sixty per cent of the respondents said they wanted a government elected democratically.

That this is a very sad day for democracy is a gross understatement.

* The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/opinion/dzulkefly-ahmad/52658-has-the-law-become-an-ass-

Save Malaysia!

Link download:

SELAMATKAN M ALAYSIA
http://www.box.net/shared/e84lumj614

KONSPIRASI 2 Anwar Ibrahim

http://www.box.net/shared/36zqr29311

• ASIA NEWS
• FEBRUARY 9, 2010, 6:15 A.M. ET

Malaysian Court Rejects Opposition Bid to Regain Power in Key State

By JAMES HOOKWAY

KUALA LUMPUR—Malaysia’s highest court Tuesday threw out an opposition attempt to reclaim political control of an important state, underscoring the judiciary’s pivotal role in determining the balance of power in this resource-rich but divided country and providing a lift to Prime Minister Najib Razak.

Tuesday’s decision also comes at a time when the main opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim, is on trial for sodomy, a crime under Malaysian law. He denies the allegations, which he says are part of a government conspiracy to discredit him—a claim the government likewise denies. Political analysts say the country’s judicial system is coming under intense scrutiny as its role in settling domestic feuds expands.

The issues involved in Tuesday’s decision were more local. Malaysia’s opposition alliance won control of tin-rich Perak state in northern Malaysia in 2008 in what was seen as a crucial victory. Perak is one of the country’s most important states, with large auto, agriculture and mining interests, and its flirtation with the opposition has greatly frustrated the country’s ruling elite.

But the state’s parliament was left in limbo in early 2009 after Malaysia’s ruling National Front coalition convinced three opposition members to switch over to its ranks—enough to give it a majority in the state legislature and to boost Mr. Najib, who in April last year took control of the national government.

The state’s sultan, an unelected local royal ruler who has limited constitutional powers, ordered the opposition-led state government of Nizar Jamaluddin to step down, and appointed a pro-National Front government to take its place.

Mr. Nizar refused to quit, saying Sultan Azlan Shah had the right to appoint but not remove a government. That prompted a long legal battle which was resolved Tuesday when Federal Court Chief Judge Arifin Zakaria said Perak’s sultan had a right to remove a government if it refuses to quit.

Several hundred supporters from both camps squared off Tuesday outside the Federal Court building in Putrajaya, Malaysia’s administrative capital, and had to be separated by riot police. Mr. Nizar condemned the result as in effect a return to absolute monarchy by expanding the powers of the sultan.

Political analysts here say Tuesday’s ruling demonstrates the significant political role Malaysia’s legal system is playing as the National Front government and its opponents butt heads more frequently.

Malaysian government officials and senior judges such as Mr. Arifin and Chief Justice Zaki Azmi say the judiciary is up to the challenge and impartial, and political and legal analysts say some courts have become increasingly independent-minded in recent years.

In December, a Kuala Lumpur High Court judge overturned a government ban on Christians using the term “Allah” as a translation for God, incensing many Muslims who say the word is reserved for Islam.

Lower courts initially ruled that the government’s takeover of the state assembly in Perak was illegal. However, that decision was overruled by Malaysia’s Appeals Court and, on Tuesday, by the Federal Court, the country’s highest court. Many analysts expect the “Allah” verdict also to be overturned on appeal.

“What this shows is that the Federal Court is under the thumb of the government and that the space for legal challenges to the government gradually is being curtailed,” said James Chin, a political science professor at the Malaysian campus of Australia’s Monash University.

International criticism of Malaysia’s justice system has increased since the trial of Mr. Anwar got under way last week. Malaysia’s deputy foreign minister, A. Kohilan Pillay, Monday warned foreign governments not to “meddle” in Mr. Anwar’s case.

The U.S. State Department has previously expressed its concern as to whether Mr. Anwar, 62 years old, will receive a fair trial, while Australian parliamentarian Michael Danby told Australia’s parliament last week that Malaysia’s legal system was being “manipulated” by Mr. Anwar’s political opponents.

Malaysia’s government and Mr. Razak, the prime minister, have denied having anything to do with the allegations against Mr. Anwar, which emerged in 2008 when a former aide accused the opposition leader of sodomizing him.

Mr. Anwar was arrested in 1998 on a similar charge after challenging the government of then-Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad , and convicted. He spent six years in jail before his conviction was overturned on appeal in 2004, the year after Dr. Mahathir retired.

Like this time, Mr. Anwar said the allegations made against him in 1998 were fabricated to destroy his reputation. Dr. Mahathir denies there was any conspiracy against Mr. Anwar.

Next Post

Please share this important info with your friends:-

5 Cara Dapatkan Info Terkini Kes Fitnah 2 Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim:
5 Fastest Ways to follow Conspiracy Case on Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim:

1. FaceBook Fan Page DSAI
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Anwar-Ibrahim/16194831839?ref=search&sid=1050280454.1225754697..1

2. Twitter @AnwarIbrahim
http://twitter.com/anwaribrahim

3. TV Selangor
http://tvselangor.com/v2/

4. Sistem SMS Parti Keadilan Rakyat
How to subscribe?
Type: REG ADIL
sms to: 32300

5. Blog DSAI
http://anwaribrahimblog.com/

6. MediaRakyat
http://mediarakyat.net

———————————————————————————————————–

Indonesia: Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim Put Once More on Trial

From Mynews.in 9.2.10

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and SUARAM express their deepest concern regarding the opening on 3 January 2010 of the trial of Anwar Ibrahim, central figure of the Malaysian opposition, accused of sodomy.

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and SUARAM express their deepest concern regarding the opening on 3 January 2010 of the trial of Anwar Ibrahim, central figure of the Malaysian opposition, accused of sodomy.

The trial of Anwar Ibrahim started on January 3 with Mr. Anwar pleading not guilty and claiming that he is victim of politically motivated criminal suit. In August 2008, a few months after the national election in Malaysia, Mr. Anwar was charged with sodomy against a 24 years old former male aide, under section 377B of the Penal Code of Malaysia that criminalizes homosexuality.

Mr. Anwar had faced similar charges in 1998. He was imprisoned and released in 2004 when the guilty verdict was overturned. After his release, he returned to his political activities and since the election of 2008 he represents the main challenge for the ruling party.

There are already signs that the trial will be neither fair nor independent with the prosecution having refused to deliver evidence to the defense. Several irregularities have also marked the pre-trial procedure: the police refused to publicly release the first information report filed by the complainant, as required under Malaysian law; in addition, it is reported that no evidence of “sodomy” was found according to the medical report of an anal examination of the alleged victim conducted by a doctor at Hospital Pusrawi and leaked on the internet on July 29, 2008.

FIDH and SUARAM call upon the Malaysian authorities to respect the international and domestic standards related to the right to a fair trial and to the independence of the judiciary.

They believe that this new trail against a major opposition leader is politically motivated and recall that the right to free and fair elections is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. …

CONSPIRACY 2 AGAINST ANWAR IBRAHIM

ANWAR IBRAHIM – KONSPIRASI NOMBOR DUA

Hanya sebelas tahun semenjak Anwar Ibrahim dipecat dari jawatan timbalan perdana menteri, beliau menerima tamparan dengan dakwaan liwat dan seolah-olahnya tuduhan rasuah (penyelewengan kuasa). Beliau berdepan dengan dua perbicaraan yang dikutuk seluruh dunia sebagai perbicaraan tidak adil dan bermotivasikan kepentingan politik pihak tertentu. Hasilnya beliau menghabiskan enam tahun dalam tahanan di Penjara Sungai Buloh, dikurung bersendirian selama pemenjaraan hanya dibenarkan bertemu dengan ahli keluarga dan para peguam sahaja. Akhirnya bekas Perdana Menteri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad mendapat hukuman setimpal dengan berat hati dipaksa bersara pada bulan Oktober 2003. Kemudiannya Anwar dibebas dan dilepaskan pada 2 haribulan September 2004 pada tahap terakhir rayuannya di mahkamah mengubah penghakiman kes liwatnya.

Sekarang mimpi ngeri itu bermula lagi. Pada 16 Julai 2008, Anwar ditangkap atas tuduhan kes liwat yang baru, selepas suatu laporan polis dibuat oleh Saiful Bukhari, pembantu berpangkat rendah dalam pejabatnya pada 28 Jun 2008. Anwar berkata tuduhan ini, sekali lagi bermotifkan politik, sebagai cubaan terbaru untuk menghalang kerjaya politiknya yang kembali bangkit mendadak kegemilangannya. Ramai orang di dalam dan di luar negara bersetuju dengan penilaian ini.

Kes terbaru ini hanyalah ulang tayang skrip lama dengan para pelakon yang baru – skrip sekarang ini juga menampilkan episod-episod campurtangan politik, kecurangan dan penyelewengan para pegawai di pejabat Peguam Negara dan pihak polis, penipuan bukti-bukti yang muncul daripada suatu konspirasi politik untuk menghentikan kerjaya cemerlang politik Anwar.

KES HAIRAN YANG BENAR BENAR PELIK

Terdapat banyak fakta terhadap dakwaan yang dibuat Saiful dan tindak tanduknya yang sudahpun berada dalam pengetahuan orang ramai. Fakta-fakta ini bercakap dengan sendirinya. Secepatnya ia menunjukkan betapa tidak kukuhnya kes yang direka-reka ini, selain bertujuan menjatuhkan Anwar.

Saiful mendakwa dalam laporan polisnya bertarikh 28 June 2008 di Hospital Kuala Lumpur (“HKL”) yang dia diliwat Anwar pada tengahari Khamis 26 Jun 2008 di sebuah kondominium di Bukit Damansara. Saiful bercerita kepada pihak polis dalam kenyataannya yang mendakwa dia telah diserang paksa sebanyak 8 ke 9 kali tanpa kerelaan hatinya oleh Anwar sepanjang dua bulan yang berlalu itu. Dalam laporan polisnya dua hari kemudian pada 28 Jun 2008, dia mendakwa kejadian liwat ini memang berlaku tanpa kerelaan hatinya.Cerita Saiful ini menimbulkan kecurigaan kenapa dia sebagai kononnya “si mangsa”yang dipaksa liwat 8 ke 9 kali tanpa kerelaan hatinya, selama dua bulan tetapi tidak membuat sebarang aduan kepada pihak berkuasa. Sepanjang waktu itu dia berhubungan secara biasa dengan Anwar dan kesemua kakitangan di pejabat Anwar Ibrahim.

Turut didedahkan pada Rabu 25hb Jun 2008, sehari sebelum serangan seksual terakhir pada hari Khamis keesokan harinya, Saiful telah bertemu dengan pegawai polis berpangkat tinggi Penolong Kanan Komisioner SAC Rodwan Mohd Yusof (waktu iti Timbalan Pengarah Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Pasukan Polis DiRaja Malaysia, sekarang Ketua Polis Melaka) di Hotel COncorde, Kuala Lumpur di bilik bernombor 619. Apabila ditanya wartawan tentang pertemuan ini, Rodwan tidak memberikan sebarang komen. Rodwan telah memainkan peranan penting bersama pasukan polis dalam kes Anwar tahun 1998/99 dahulu. Rodwan terkenal dengan peranannya mengambil sampel darah Anwar untuk ujian DNA tanpa mengikut lunas undang-undang. Dia juga terkenal dengan tuduhan meletakkan kesan DNA yang direka-reka pada tilam yang diusung ke mahkamah. Sewaktu perbicaraan pertamanya pada tahun 1998, bukti DNA tidak dapat dipakai hinggakan hakim Augustine Paul yang jelas berat sebelah terpaksa membuang bukti tersebut daripada membantu kes pendakwaan.

Umum juga telah didedahkan “si mangsa” ini telah juga bertemu dengan Perdana Menteri sekarang (waktu itu masih Timbalan Perdana Menteri) beberapa hari sebelum kejadian yang didakwa itu berlaku. Apa yang lebih menarik lagi tentang pendedahan ini Najib pada awalnya menafikan pertemuan dengan Saiful kepada pihak media, tetapi kemudiannya mengakui, menjelaskan pertemuan itu berlangsung kerana Saiful (gagal dari universiti, tidak habis belajar) meminta bantuan Najib untuk mendapatkan biasiswa. Selepas itu barulah Najib memberi tahu pihak media bahawa Saiful diliwat Anwar dan dalam pertemuan tersebut Saiful kelihatan cukup traumatik.

Tindak tanduk Saiful selepas kononnya dipaksa liwat pada hari Khamis turut menimbulkan tanda tanya. Pagi besoknya, Saiful ke pejabat Anwar seperti biasa. Dia tidak mengadu kepada sesiapapun dan muncul dalam keadaan yang normal.Pada sebelah petangnya dia menghadiri acara anjuran Anwar Ibrahim Club di rumah Anwar, yang mana Anwar sendiri turut hadir. Di sana dia membantu menghidangkan kopi kepada sedozen orang yang hadir, tanpa memperlihatkan tanda-tanda takut atau cemas, dia mampu berdiri dan duduk tanpa menunjukkan tanda-tanda ketidak selesaan.

Pada hari Sabtu berikutnya, pada sebelah tengahari, kira-kira jam 2 petang, Saiful memutuskan untuk pergi ke hospital swasta Pusat Rawatan Islam (PUSRAWI) di Jalan Tun Razak. Di situ, dia mengadu kepada Dr. Osman yang dia merasa sakit di dalam lubang duburnya selama beberapa hari dan kelihatannya dia merasa seperti ada bahan “plastik” yang dimasukkan. Pemeriksaan protoskopi (menggunakan alat protoskop yang bertujuan memeriksa hujung lubang dubur) oleh Dr. Osman menunjukkan tidak ada tanda-tanda penembusan atau kemasukan dan keadaan normal dubur dan rektum hujung usus.

Selesai pemeriksaan, dia memberitahu Dr. Osman yang dia diliwat oleh VIP (orang kenamaan) dan Saiful telah dinasihatkan untuk mendapatkan pemeriksaan di hospital kerajaan. Meskipun HKL hanyalah terletak di seberang jalan, Saiful mengambil masa selama dua setangah jam untuk sampai ke sana. Di HKL, dia melaporkan yang dia diliwat, dia kemudiannya diperiksa oleh oleh tiga orang doktor pakar, yang mana bukanlah suatu prosedur yang biasa. Ketiga-tiga doktor tersebut dalam laporan rasmi mereka menyebut, “tidak ada rumusan hasil pemeriksaan klinikal yang dengan pasti dapat mencadangkan penembusan ke dalam lubang dubur …” sekali lagi ia menguatkan kesimpulan yang dibuat Dr. Osman.

Sesiapapun yang menjadi penyiasat dengan sifat waras akan memahami bahawa pertuduhan liwat tidak akan ke mana-mana dalam keadaan bukti perubatan sejelas itu. Tiada seorangpun penyiasat yang waras akan meneruskan kes pendakwaan. Di sini kita melihat perkara yang sebaliknya berlaku. Pasukan penyiasat bersungguh-sungguh, biarpun bukti perubatan menunjukkan tidak ada penembusan terhadap lubang dubur. Sifat hasad berniat jahat dalam penyiasatan mengukuhkan lagi kewujudan motif politik disebalik tindakan mereka.

Penyiasatan kes ini diteruskan biarpun hasil laporan pemeriksaan perubatan telah diserahkan dengan serta-merta kepada para penyiasat polis. Spesimen yang diambil dengan pengelap daripada Saiful menimbulkan syak wasangka kerana ia mengambil masa dua hari untuk sampai ke makmal untuk dianalisa. Sekarang kita tahu bahawa pihak pendakwaan akan bergantung kepada bukti DNA dalam cubaan untuk membuktikan Anwar terlibat dalam tindakan meliwat Saiful tanpa kerelaannya.

Bagaimana seorang tua dengan sakit belakang dapat memaksa seorang jejaka yang tinggi dan tegap berusia 24 tahun, boleh menjadi soalan yang menarik untuk dijawab para pemerhati politik sepanjang perbicaraan ini.

Soalan lain yang menarik ialah dalam keadaan bukti kukuh perubatan yang menyatakan pemeriksaan klinikal tidak menemui malah untuk mencadangkan penembusan, kurangnya wibawa laporan DNA yang cuba menunjukkan DNA Anwar ditemui didalam lubang dubur Saiful. Perlu diingatkan bahwa bukti DNA sangat mudah untuk direka atau ditambah-tambah, khususnya jika kerja-kerja mereka-reka tambah bukti ini dilakukan oleh para penyiasat yang sama dalam perbicaraan 1998 dahulu.

CONTOH CONTOH BUKTI YANG DIREKA REKA

Ini bukan kali pertama, kes yang melibatkan Anwar untuk fenomena bukti yang direka-reka muncul. Kes 1998 dan 1999 penuh dengan kejadian pengakuan yang dirancang, bukti DNA yang direka-reka dan penyembunyian bukti pada pihak polis dan para pendakwa kanan yang terlibat.

Beberapa contoh dapat diberikan. Gani Patail merupakan salah seorang Pendakwaraya Kanan dalam kes Anwar pada tahun 1998 telah didedahkan pada tahun ini sebagai mereka-reka bukti perubatan dalam bentuk laporan perubatan. Ianya berhubung penyiasatan serangan terhadap Anwar pada malam 20 September 1998 bilamana Anwar telah diserang secara ganas oleh Rahim Noor. Setelah dunia melihat mata lebam Anwar, wujud desakan dan barulah diikuti dengan penyiasatan polis. Pegawai Penyiasat dalam kes tersebut, Dato Mat Zain telah mengesahkan hal ini dalam suratnya kepada SPRM (Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia) bertarikh 15 April. Menurut surat itu, Gani Patail dengan bersungguh-sungguh mereka-reka bukti laporan perubatan dengan dibantu Musa Hassan (sekarang Ketua Polis Negara) dalam cubaan untuk cuba mencadangkan kecederaan Anwar dilakukan oleh dirinya sendiri. Dr. Mahathir kemudiannya mengumumkan kepada awam tentang kecederaan tersebut dilakukan oleh Anwar sendiri.

Pembentukan bukti rekaan terhadap Anwar juga berlaku dalam kes-kes dan orang-orang yang lain. Gani Patail didakwa terbabis mengancam Nallakaruppan dengan hukuman bunuhbagi memaksa dirinya memberi keterangan palsu terhadap Anwar. Hal ini didedahkan dalam akuan bersumpah yang dibuat peguam Nallakaruppan, Manjeet Singh Dhillon yang merupakan saksi langsung cubaan mengugut oleh Gani Patail bagi mendapatkan bukti palsu terhadap Anwar.

Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan Steve Shim dalam kes Zainur Zakaria lawan PP [2001] 3 CLJ ada menyatakan bahawa permohonan Anwar untuk membatalkan Gani Patail dan Azahar sebagai pendakwaraya kanan kerana penglibatan mereka dalam mengancam Nallakaruppan dengan hukuman bunuh bagi mendapatkan bukti rekaan yang diinginkan:

”Dalam keadaan ini, apakah beliau (“Anwar”) dianggap tidak wajar atas asas ianya melampaui keraguan munasabah untuk membuat aduan bahawa tindak tanduk Peguam Negara (Gani Patail) sewaktu pertemuan pada 2 Oktober 1998 dalam cubaan memaksa Nalla untuk mereka-reka bukti bagi menyempurnakan tuduhan terhadap Anwar untuk kes kesalahan seksual yang lain?”

Namun Hakim Augustine Paul tidak bertindak untuk membatalkan kelayan Gani Patail dan Azahar. Malah Augustine mendapati peguambela Anwar, Zainur Zakaria bersalah sebagai menghina mahkamah kerana memfailkan permohonan pembatalan kelayakan tersebut dan menjatuhkan hukuman 3 bulan penjara. Gani Patail terus mendaki puncak kekuasaan menjadi Peguam Negara. Azahar pula menjadi Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi. Malaysia Boleh!

Sukma, adik angkat Anwar, ditangkap pada September 1998 dan ditahan tanpa ada perhubungan dengan peguam dan keluarga selama 14 hari. Permohonan peguamnya untuk bertemu dengan Sukma ditolak. Dia disiksa secara mental dan fizikal sehinggalah dia membuat pengakuan melakukan liwat dengan Anwar. Pegawai polis yang dinamakan dalam penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan sebagai bertanggungjawab dalam penyiksaan ini ialah Musa Hassan, sekarang Ketua Polis Malaysia. Pemeriksaan fizikal oleh Dr. Zahari Noor menunjukkan tidak ada bukti penembusan – laporan ini diketahui oleh pihak pendakwaraya yang menyembunyikannya daripada pengetahuan mahkamah, saat Sukma mengaku “bersalah” hanya berasaskan pengakuan yang dipaksakan itu. Peguam yang dilantik keluarga Sukma tidak dibenarkan bersuara mewakili anak guamnya setelah dibantah oleh pihak pendakwa raya ( Gani Patail and Yusuf Zainal Abiden ).

Mahkamah Rayuan dalam penghakiman bertulisnya pada Jun 2006 dalam kes Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja v PP [2007] 4 CLJ 697] menyatakan:

“Di sini kita ada kes kelakuan sumbang pihak pendakwaan dengan secara sengaja menyembunyikan bukti yang memenangkan pihak pembelaan. Tidak ada lagi kes ketidak adilan sejelas ini, apabila pengakuan bersalah didakwa didapatkan dengan cara tekanan yang tidak sah di sisi undang-undang.”

Penangkapan dan penahanan Dr Munawar Anees juga sama seperti yang terjadi kepada Sukma, dia ditahan tanpa dapat berhubung dengan peguam dan keluarga, disiksa dan dipaksa membuat pengakuan palsu melakukan liwat dengan Anwar. Malang bagi dirinya, kesemua mahkamah yang dirayu tidak memenangkan kesnya.Hakim-hakim seperti Low Hop Bing J di Mahkamah Rayuan bersama hakim Zaki Tun Azmi ( Ketua Hakim sekarang), Zulkefli Makinudin J. dan Nik Hashim J di Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memastikan permohonan Dr Munawar untuk mendapat keadilan dan membolehkan kesnya dibuka semula telah ditamatkan. Mereka memastikan Dr Munawar tidak berupaya untuk mendedahkan pengalaman pahitnya pada tahun 1998 di tangan pihak polis, pendakwaan dan mahkamah dalam suatu perbicaraan yang baru. Permohonannya untuk menimbal semula keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan telah ditolak baru-baru ini pada 28 Desember 2009 oleh panel Mahkamah Persekutuan yang dianggotai Arifin Zakaria J., Raus Sharif J. dan Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yusuf.

Pergeseran yang jelas di antara layanan dalam kes Sukma dan kes Munawar pada peringkat rayuan kepada mahkamah yang lebih atas cukup terang dan nyata. Di dalam sistem perundangan jenayah manapun, apabila pengakuan dicabar atas sebab dilakukaan tanpa kerelaan, pihak tertuduh secara automatiknya dianugerahkan peluang mendengar viva voce (melalui saksi-saksi) berhubung dengan kesukarelaannya. Pendinding perundangan ini menjadi amat penting kerana apabila pengakuan bersalah direkodkan berdasarkan pengakuan tanpa rela. Cukup disesalkan mahkamah tertinggi di Malaysia tidak nampak prinsip-prinsip asas keadilan sistem kehakiman ini. Melalui tindakan tersebut, mereka telah mengesahkan jenayah serius yang dilakukan pihak polis dan pendakwaraya terlibat apabila dia ditangkap, ditahan dan disiksa bagi mendapatkan pengakuan palsu dan dipenjarakan selama enam bulan hanya kerana untuk memburukkan nama Anwar dengan perkaitan hubungan perkenalan.

KONSPIRASI HASAD NIAT JAHAT DALAM KES SEKARANG

Gani Patail sekarang merupakan Peguam Negara di Malaysia. Musa Hassan ketua pasukan polis negara. Kedua-dua nama, secara khususnya Gani Patail, telah didedahkan oleh Mat Zain sebagai mereka cipta bukti palsu, suatu jenayah yang serius, bagi mengenakan Anwar dalam penyiasatan ke “mata lebam” Anwar.

Penyiasatan kes sekarang ini dibawah kawalan polis yang mendapat arahan dari Musa Hassan. Hasad jahat penyiasatan menjadi cukup nyata apabila anggota polis bersenjata dan bertopeng menangkap Anwar kira-kira jam 1 tengahari di rumahnya pada 16 Julai 2008 – ini terjadi kira-kira dua setengah minggu selepas laporan dibuat Saiful. Penangkapan itu sebenarnya langsung tidak perlu dibuat. Ini disebabkan para peguam Anwar sedang mengiringi beliau ke Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah Kuala Lumpur pada jam 2 petang hari yang sama bagi menghadiri temujanji yang telahpun diatur sebelum itu dan dipersetujui oleh pegawai polis yang ditugaskan merekod kenyataan Anwar.

Namun, beliau ditangkap umpamanya beliau seorang penjenayah yang sedang melarikan diri. Anwar ditahan semalaman di lokap, sekali lagi ianya tidak perlu dan cukup jelas menunjukkan hasad jahat. Beliau dipaksa tidur di atas lantai simen yang dingin, menambah burukkan kecederaan lama bahagian belakangnya. Alasan yang diberikan polis untuk menahan Anwar selama semalaman adalah kerana mereka perlu menyelesaikan untuk mengambil kenyataan beliau – namun permintaan beliau untuk pulang pada waktu yang dijanjikan telah ditolak. Sekarang ia menjadi amat jelas bahawa Anwar ditahan semalaman dilokap kerana percubaan untuk mendapatlan sampel DNA dari tubuh beliau.

Tuduhan Saiful diperkuatkan lagi dengan Saiful mengambil bahagian dalam acara “sumpah lakhnat” di Masjid Negara Kuala Lumpur pada 15 Julai 2008 dengan kehadiran Ustaz Ramlang bin Porigi, salah serang imam di sana. Kemudiannya pada bulan Ogos, Ustaz Ramlang mendedahkan yang dia diarahkan oleh Ketua Jabatan Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur (JAIWP) Dato Che Mat bin Che Ali untuk hadir sebagai saksi saat sumpah tersebut berlangsung. Disebabkan dia membuat pendedahan umum berhubung perkara ini, Ustaz Ramlang kemudiannya ditukar ke bahagian “kewangan” (JAIWP). Beberapa bulan kemudiannya dia dikenakan tindakan disiplin.

Campurtangan politik juga ditunjukkan dalam pengendalian aduan qazaf yang difailkan oleh Anwar ke atas Saiful kepada pihak JAIWP pada 9 Julai (qazaf merupakan kesalahan dibawah undang-undang syariah kerana memberi kenyataan fitnah terhadap orang lain, khususnya dalam hubungannya dengan kesalahan seksual). Jabatan penguatkuasaan JAIWP telah menyelesaikan penyiasatannya dalam masa beberapa bulan dan telah merekod kenyataan dari Anwar, Saiful dan saksi-saksi yang relevan. Sehingga ke hari ini JAIWP masih belum mengisytiharkan tidak ada kesalahan yang dilakukan Saiful. Dalam masa yang sama, tidak ada pendakwaan terhadap Saiful yang cuba dibuat. Para pegawai JAIWP telah diarahkan oleh Menteri Persekutuan bertanggungjawab dalam hal ehwal agama Islam untuk tidak mengambil sebarang tindakan terhadap Saiful, atas alasan kes liwatnya masih belum habis berlangsung. Hal ini adalah salah kerana perundangan kedua mahkamah ini adalah terpisah dan indipenden dan sekali lagi ia menunjukkan campurtangan politik.

Hasad jahat dan berat sebelah di pihak pendakwaan; memegang dokumen daripada pihak pembelaan; perbicaraan tidak adil

Perhatian yang serius patut diberikan terhadap hasad jahat dan sikap berat sebelah di pihak pendakwaan. Gani Patail menandatangani sijil pemindahan kes Anwar dari Mahkamah Sesyen ke Mahkamah Tinggi. Yusuf Zainal Abiden, Pendakwaraya Kanan dalam pasukan pendakwaan kes sekarang juga terlibat secara giat dalam kes Sukma dan kes pendakwaan Anwar pada tahun 1998. Terdapat keprihatinan dengan memberikan sikap berat sebelah dan mala fide atau niat jahat yang ditunjukkan pihak pendakwaan dalam kes-kes sebelum ini, bahawa Anwar tidak akan mendapat perbicaraan yang adil daripada Pendakwaraya Kanan yang mendakwanya sekarang.

Beberapa tindakan berniat jahat telahpun ditunjukkan dalam persoalan pencarian dokumen-dokumen dan bukti dalam kes semasa ini. Permohonan beterusan dari barisan para peguam Anwar untuk mendapatkan dokumen-dokumen yang sesuai bagi mempersiapkan pembelaan seperti kenyataa saksi Saiful dan saksi-saksi lainnya tidak dilayan oleh Pendakwaraya Kanan. Anwar kemudiannya memohon dokumen-dokumen ini kepada hakim perbicaraan Mahkamah Tinggi. Hakim Zabidin Mohd Diah telah membenarkan permohonan Anwar ini. Pihak pendakwaraya pula merayu, yang menyebabkan Mahkamah Rayuan mengenepikan penghakiman Mahkamah Tinggi. Rayuan Anwar ke Mahkamah Persekutuan ditolak pada Jumaat 28 Januari 2010. Suatu keputusan yang tidak mengejutkan, dengan melihat pendirian politik yang diambil oleh hakim-hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Dr Munawar.

Fakta menunjukkan rayuan Anwar ke Mahkamah Persekutuan terhadap beberapa hal penting berhubung pengeluaran dokumen itu masih lagi menunggu keputusan. Namun demikian, hakim perbicaraan Mahkamah Tinggi pada 6 Disember 2009 muncul dalam keadaan tertekan untuk menetapkan tarikh perbicaraan lebih awal dan menetapkan perbicaraan dimulakan pada 25 Januari selama sebulan. Hakim yang sama pernah berkata bahawa tahun ini tarikh perbicaraan tidak akan ditetapkan sehinggalah perihal mendapatkan dokumen-dokumen itu ditentukan oleh rayuan ke peringkat mahkamah yang lebih atas.

Keadilan perbicaraan yang bakal dihadapi Anwar telah dipersoalkan dengan penafian dokumen-dokumen penting bagi persiapan pembelaan. Di dalam perbicaraan jenayah pada hampir keseluruhan sistem perundangan, pihak tertuduh akan diberikan, sebelum perbicaraan, kenyataan-kenyataan kesemua saksi dan keseluruhan dokumen yang dikeluarkan oleh kesemua saksi terbabit. Prosedur ini memastikan keadilan terhadap semua pihak, dan menghalang penangguhan perbicaraan. Meskipun terdapat peruntukan undang-undang sedia ada, namun perbicaraan Anwar akan berjalan seperti cara lama dengan serangan-serangan hendap penghujahan dan pembuktian. Setiap butir-butir perincian kes pendakwaan dan banyak dokumen-dokumen penting akan dilihat kali pertama oleh pihak pembelaan hanya sewaktu perbicaraan berlangsung. Ianya meletakkan pihak tertuduh dan para peguam belanya dalam keadaan tekanan yang tidak adil.

KONSPIRASI POLITIK

Kunci kepada perbicaraan ini dapat dilihat dengan tindak-tanduk bermotif politik oleh pihak pendakwaan dan kepentingan pihak-pihak yang terlibat, secara khususnya Gani Patail (Peguam Negara sekarang) dan Musa Hassan (Ketua Polis Negara sekarang) serta Perdana Menteri hari ini.

Pakatan Rakyat dan Anwar telah mengkritik mereka secara habisa-habisan di dalam dan di luar parlimen – Peguam Negara Gani Patail dengan perlakuan jenayahnya sendiri di dalam kes penyiasatan “mata lebam”, kegagalannya untuk memastikan pendakwaan bagi banyak kes-kes rasuah yang serius, secara khususnya yang berkaitan dengan jenayah dan rasuah yang didedahkan dalam video klip VK Lingam; juga terhadap hubungan terhadap dakwaan-dakwaan berwibawa keterlibatan KPN Musa Hassan dalam tindakan jenayahnya berserta hubungan rasuahnya dengan ketua-ketua kumpulan kongsi gelap seperti BK Tan dan Goh Cheng Poh.

Kritikan terbuka Anwar terhadap keterlibatan Perdana Menteri dalam kes rasuah pembelian jet Sukhoi dan kapal Selam Scorpene oleh Kementerian Pertahanan telah menjadi rekod umum. Anwar juga berulang kali mendesak Najib membenarkan penyiasatan bebas bagi membersihkan namanya atas dakwaan berwibawa penglibatan dirinya dan isterinya Rosmah dalam pembunuhan terkenal model Mongolia Altantuya Shaaribuu.

Blog-blog di internet melaporkan bukti akuan bersumpaj yang dibuat oleh penyiasat persendirian Balasubramaniam yang mengatakan Altantuya memberitahunya yang dia mempunyai hubungan peribadi dengan Najib dan kaitannya dengan rundingan pembelian senjata yang sama serta tentang bagaimana DSP Musa Safiri, pegawai polis pengiring Najib memainkan peranan dalam penangkapan dan pelenyapan Altantuya. Musa Safiri malah tidak dipanggil sebagai saksi dalam perbicaraan kes pembunuhan Altantuya.

Anwar pada bulan Julai tahun 2008 dan pada Februari tahun lalu turut memfailkan laporan polis berkenaan Gani Patail dan Musa Hassan atas peranan mereka dalam mereka-cipta bukti terhadap diri beliau dalam penyiasatan kes “mata lebam” pada tahun 1998. Laporan itu juga turut mendakwa mereka bersubahat memfailkan laporan polis palsu pada malam 20 September 1998 dalam hubungannya dengan penangkapan Anwar di rumah beliau di Bukit Damansara. Tidak ada satupun laporan-laporan ini menghasilkan pendakwaan biarpun seorang bekas hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan berpendapat Gani melakukan kesalahan jenayah dalam kes penyiasatan “mata lebam”.

Penyalahgunaan lembaga-lembaga awam seperti pasukan polis, Pejabat Peguam Negara, Kehakiman dan institusi lainnya seperti yang pernah terjadi pada tahun 1998, sedang berlaku sekali lagi dengan kes terbaru ini. Ia bukanlah kes jenayah yang mudah. Apa yang sedang diperjudikan sekarang ini adalah penggunaan kes aniaya dan palsu sebagai senjata politik untuk menghentikan kemajuan Anwar Ibrahim dan gerakan politik Pakatan Rakyat yang dipimpinnya. Suatu kemajuan gerakan yang mengancam kewujudan dan masa depan kerajaan Barisan Nasional dan para pemimpinnya.

SIVARASA RASIAH

Nizar speaks

Malaysians at the Federal Court, Putrajaya this morning

MALAYSIA’S DEMOCRACY LACKS SUBSTANCE

Written by Sharon Tan

Tuesday, 09 February 2010 00:15 THE EDGE

KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia has a democracy that exists in name but grievously compromised in substance, reality and fact, said Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, echoing the words of the nation’s founding father Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al Haj.

In his speech at the launch of Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (Ideas), the Gua Musang MP said Tunku’s memory had been brushed out of the nation’s consciousness.

He said Tunku and his generation built institutions that empowered the people rather than cults of personality to concentrate power and wealth in themselves.

“They reached instinctively for democratic decision making. The concepts and precepts of constitutional democracy were part of their natural vocabulary and instinctive reactions. They knew whom the country belonged to, and that they lived to serve.

“It is no accident that the erasure of his memory has gone hand-in-hand with the erosion of our institutions. Tunku built up a system of good civil service in which ordinary citizens did not need to see so and so to get things done.

“This has been replaced by a domineering style of leadership in which you get things done depending on who you know,” said Tengku Razaleigh.

He also said in place of protection for ordinary citizens guaranteed by popular representation, rule of law and checks and balances of independent institutions, the country now had the cult of great leader.

“In place of a system which was designed to ensure the rights of the ordinary citizen, we have a system re-designed around the interests of corporate and political bosses.

“Ordinary Malaysians are disenfranchised of their rights to health, education and security. They are then patronised by leaders whose idea of public service is to go around like Father Christmas doling out gifts of resources, which are really the property of the people.

“This turns citizens into supplicants. Our properties are converted into gifts from the great leader. Our rights are converted into permissions. Our country has become his country,” said Tengku Razaleigh.

He added that Tunku’s conception of politics and system of government had no place for corrupt practices, arbitrary executive power and the manipulation of racial and religious identity for political gain.

He also said Tunku led and worked with an entire class of individuals schooled in the culture and practice of parliamentary democracy.

“In politics and the civil service they thrived in a time before the machine politics of patronage and low-brow identity politics had sucked the life and talent out of the ruling party and left it filled with people who quite simply don’t have the ability to hold this country together anymore,” he said.

Tengku Razaleigh said Malaysia was still stuck in 1997 where the country faced a mortal crisis.

“If anyone of us was tempted to imagine that Malaysia had outgrown the sordid events of 1997, the government’s newspapers bring to our breakfast tables each day Sodomy 2, to remind us that after a decade of sloganeering, we have come full circle to find ourselves back at the doorstep of our debased institution and a constitution that is increasingly inoperative.

“The progress of the trial of the leader of the opposition, the government’s apparent ignorance of sovereign rights of the states and the way in which we have allowed religious issues to be manipulated, point to that conclusion.

“The constitutional crisis in Perak, in which a government has been installed by illegal means, the failure to implement two Royal Commission of Inquiry findings, point to that conclusion,” he blasted.

The Kelantan prince said the “barbarous political culture” promoted by the establishment media drove home the point that the system of government was still in 1997.

“We are still in the after-wash of a wave of bad taste, authoritarianism and arbitrary power that destroyed our practice of parliamentary democracy, compromised our judiciary and police, and disenfranchised our people.

“To modify Tunku’s words, we now have a democracy ‘existing in name, but grievously compromised in substance, reality and fact’.

“Our penchant for slogans is a reflection of our dislocation from the reality of constitutional and parliamentary democracy. We don’t need slogans. We need our Constitution back,” said Tengku Razaleigh.

He also urged the young people to rise to the task of changing the political system as it had been left too long to the politicians.

“To expect change from the incumbents is to expect, in the Malay saying, the mice to repair the gourd… Bagai tikus baiki labu.
“It is time for us to understand, discuss, organise and act together.

“Tunku was a true Malaysian. As we have forgotten him, we have also forgotten how to be Malaysians. We must learn again how to be free and equal citizens of a constitutional democracy.

“In our national life, we must learn again how to be a federation of sovereign states governed by the rule of law,” said Tengku Razaleigh

At the Federal Court: A Constitutional Crisis

Malaysia State Constitutional Crisis

Written by Our Correspondent Asia Sentinel

Tuesday, 09 February 2010

The courts award Perak to UMNO Any indication that Malaysia’s courts were becoming independent of the government disappeared from view again Tuesday when the five-member Federal Court ruled that United Malays National Organization stalwart Zambry Abdul Kadir is the rightful chief minister of the state of Perak, the country’s second biggest and one of its richest. The state has been caught a constitutional crisis since May of 2009, with the government paralyzed by the controversy over who was actually in charge. Perak had been controlled by the national opposition coalition Pakatan Rakyat as a result of the March 2008 national election, with Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as chief minister. However, then-Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak engineered the defection of three lawmakers, bringing the government to a halt in a 28-28 tie. Upon their defection, Sultan Raja Azlan Shah immediately ordered Nizar to vacate his position and installed Zambry in his place. That kicked off a melee in which 65 people were arrested. Ahead of Tuesday’s decision, Rais yatim, the the Information Communication and Culture Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim, was quoted by the state-owned national wire service Bernama as calling on the people to be calm. “We should respect the decision irrespective of whether it favors A or B. We are confident in our judicial system and in the way the law is administered,” Bernama quoted him as saying. Kuala Lumpur High Court Judge Abdul Aziz Rahim ruled on May 11 that the sultan lacked the authority to remove Nizar without a vote of confidence in the statehouse, only to have the appellate court put his decision in abeyance a few hours later. The case – and the Perak state government – have been stalled as the Federal Court, the country’s highest, took up the decision in November and has chewed on it ever since. The ruling, led by Court of Appeal president Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, was built on the premise that the Barisan Nasional, or ruling national coalition, controls 31 votes in the Perak statehouse although no vote has ever been taken, and while the three defectors are said to be leaning towards the Barisan, they have given no official indication that they would cross the aisle. The Election Commission refused a letter proclaiming the realignment of their loyalty, setting the stage for the constitutional crisis. When Nizar refused to go, instead of waiting for Judge Abdul Aziz’s original ruling, elite federal Field Reserve Unit police invaded the Ipoh statehouse on May 7 to drag opposition Speaker V. Sivakumar out of the chambers amid flying furniture and protests that resulted in the arrest of 65 people. As far as can be determined, it is the first time in Malaysian history that federal police had ever entered a legislature. The ruling appears unlikely to end the continuing political uncertainty in either Perak or the government. Political analysts in Kuala Lumpur say the logical solution to the stalemate – a state popular by-election to determine the makeup of the statehouse – is unlikely because Najib and the Barisan do not believe they could win it. The state, long a tin mining center, has an extremely large Chinese and Indian population and the Chinese have largely abandoned the Barisan because of the collapse into scandal of the Malaysian Chinese Association, which is embroiled in infighting over the disappearance of billions of dollars in the attempt to turn Port Klang, 60 km. west of Kuala Lumpur, into a multimodal port. The Barisan instead appears to be counting on time to bring the voters, particularly disaffected ethnic Malays who have abandoned UMNO for the fundamentalist Parti Islam se-Malaysia and Anwar Ibrahim’s Parti Keadilan Rakyat, or People’s Justice Party, because of a long series of scandals and outright crimes. However, Anwar is on trial in Kuala Lumpur in what has been widely billed as Sodomy 2, on charges of sodomizing a former aide in a trial that to everybody but the government itself appears to be built on dubious allegations that were laid to derail the first realistic challenge to the ruling national coalition since the country was formed. In the meantime, his party is beset by infighting in several state assemblies, particularly Penang and Selangor, with a growing number of restive lawmakers threatening to leave the opposition coalition and return to the Barisan. Three have been brought before a disciplinary committee of the opposition coalition seeking answers to questions over their use of personal expense accounts. The coalition that Anwar cobbled together has been an unlikely one from the start, with the Islamic, largely rural and fundamentalist PAS on one side and the ethnic Chinese Democratic Action Party on the other, with Anwar’s moderate, urban Malays in the middle. Zulkifli Nordin, a member of Anwar’s Parti Keadilan Rakyat, was quoted publicly earlier this week as predicting mass resignations over the next two to three weeks over tensions with the DAP and PKR’s difficulty in dealing with them. “The problem was that Anwar rounded up a bunch of incompetents to run in 2008, and disillusionment was so great with UMNO that a lot of people got voted into office who should never have been voted into office,” said a businessman in Kuala Lumpur. The opposition coalition, he said, has thus never been able to capitalize on its gains by actually paying attention to governing. At the same time, the opposition has been harried by Najib’s use of law enforcement powers including the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission and others to bring opposition lawmakers in on charges that many observers believe are superfluous. Nonetheless, the court’s decision appears certain to reinforce popular opinion that Malaysia’s judiciary is thoroughly in the pockets of UMNO. That isn’t helped by the case against Anwar, who is charged with having consensual sex with the former aide, a charge that is extremely rare in Malaysia and especially Kuala Lumpur, where gay bars abound and homosexuality isn’t particularly condemned despite the fact that it is nominally against the law. An examination of the evidence against him in similar charges in 1998 leads to the overwhelming conclusion that it was concocted to derail his political career. The case has been put on temporary hold as Anwar’s lead counsel, Karpal Singh, seeks to disqualify the presiding judge, Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah.

———————————————————————————————————-

Hafiz Yatim
Feb 9, 10
11:10am

Malaysiakini.com

The Federal Court, the highest in the country, has delivered a unanimous decision in declaring that Zambry Abd Kadir of BN is the rightful Perak menteri besar (MB).

In doing so just after 11am, it dismissed the appeal by Pakatan Rakyat’s Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin and delivered perhaps the final blow to his quest to be declared the MB. He can still apply to the court to review its own decision, if he chooses to.

President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, led a five-member bench in delivering the verdict.

The others were Chief Judge of Malaya Justice Arifin Zakaria and Justices Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin, Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yusoff and Abdull Hamid Embong of the Federal Court.

Justice Arifin who read the solitary judgment for about an hour from 10.15am, reaffirmed the Court of Appeal decision, that the Kuala Lumpur High Court was wrong in not determining that Nizar’s seat was vacant.

He ruled that it is not necessary for a vote of confidence to be done in the state assembly, as the sultan can conduct his own inquiry to determine which party or coalition has the majority.

“This can be done through extraneous sources,” he said.

The sultan would have had sufficient evidence as to who commanded the majority in the Perak assembly or who suffered a lack of confidence, noted the judge.

As such, the sultan would have been able to arrive at a decision (and call for the chief executive to vacate the post). Should an individual refuse to do so, the post can be deemed vacant.

Although Justice Arifin noted that the determination of who holds the majority can be done outside the state legislative assembly, he commented towards the end of the judgment that all is not lost for Nizar (left in photo).

“If he is not satisfied with the decision, he can seek a vote of no confidence against the respondent (Zambry) in the state legislative assembly.”

In deriving the decision, the court also ruled that it would not levy costs on Nizar.

The attorney-general’s (AG) chambers was represented by the head of prosecution division Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah and Kamaluddin Md Said, the head of the Trial and Appeals division.

AG Abdul Gani Patail (right), among those who commented immediately on the ruling, said this was a sound and crucial judgment which encompasses all the previous decisions.

He refuted the suggestion that it would lead to a situation of an “absolute monarchy” – as claimed by Nizar at a press conference – because the constitutional monarchy “and everyone including the judiciary, has a place in the system”.

Nizar’s lawyers were Philip Koh, Chan Kok Keong, Leong Cheok Keng, Edmund Bon, Miohd Hanipa Maidin, Ranjit Singh, and Razlan Hadri Zulkifli.

Zambry’s lawyers are Cecil Abraham and Sunil Abraham. Zambry (left) himself was not present in court for the decision, but responded to the ruling later.

Cecil said the verdict is binding on the federal and state government.

Mohd Hafarizam Harun and M Reza Hassan held a watching brief for Umno.

Previous judicial decisions

BN was seen to have usurped power in Perak when three Pakatan Rakyat assemblypersons switched sides to become BN-friendly Independents in February last year, leading to Pakatan seeking legal recourse.

On May 11, Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim had ruled that Nizar is the rightful menteri besar.

“He is, and was, at all material times the chief minister of Perak,” Abdul Aziz told the court.

However, the appellate court’s three-member bench unanimously overturned the decision in favour of Zambry, saying that the High Court judge had failed to properly and adequately appreciate the entire evidence before him.

“We hold the view that the granting or the withholding of the request for the dissolution of the state legislative assembly is royal prerogative,” ruled Justice Md Raus Sharif.

The Federal Court had, on Nov 5 last year, heard Nizar’s appeal and submission for more then six hours but defer its decision

The court had earlier dismissed Nizar’s application for a full bench of 11 judges or an enlarged panel.

———————————————————————————————————–

Feb 9, 10 2:28pm

The Federal Court’s decision today to dismiss Pakatan Rakyat’s Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin’s appeal and declaring Zambry Abd Kadir of BN as the rightful Perak menteri besar drew a variety of opinions from the legal fraternity.

Here are some responses.

Shad Saleem Faruqi, law professor

The decision is expected. There are two issues – Nizar lost the majority and the sultan rejected his request to dissolve the state assembly. It was a stalemate.I am not surprised with the Federal Court’s decision. Since it is not a clear-cut matter, the court will give Zambry the benefit of the doubt.

George Varughese, Bar Council secretary

It may not be the most popular of decisions, but the highest court has decided. We will have to respect that. Still, I am neither surprised nor happy, as my interpretation of the Perak constitution is not the same as the Federal Court. This is my personal view.

Zaid Ibrahim, former law minister and Pakatan coordinator

As I said before, our judges in the upper echelon of the judiciary will continue to fail the people of this country. Today, the principles governing parliamentary democracy and the rule of law have been sacrificed because they have to please the political masters.

I hope the BN leaders in the midst of their celebrations realise the significance of the ruling. It means that the monarch can refuse the appointment of a menteri besar chosen by the party in power (as in Terengganu) but now can dismiss the lawful menteri besar if he so chooses. Another black day for the country.

Professor Abdul Aziz Bari, constitutional law expert

It is bad news for democracy for the court has reduced the constitution – which sought to put in place a democratic government – to a mere legal document. One wonders whether judges really understood the concept of responsible government.

The court in this instance has added another case to a list of cases that go against the very idea of constitutionalism and democracy, which stand at the very heart of the constitution. It is a pity that the court took a literal and pedantic approach that throws democracy out of the window.

————————————————————————————————————

Nizar: Malaysia menuju monarki mutlak

Hafiz Yatim Feb 9, 10 4:40pm

Keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan hari ini akan mengakibatkan situasi kemungkinan berlakunya monarki mutlak di Malaysia, dakwa menteri besar Perak yang disingkirkan, Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin.

Menurut beliau tidak perlu diadakan pilihan raya kerana raja-raja boleh menentukan siapa yang akan mengetuai kerajaan negeri ataupun pada peringkat persekutuan.

Pada sidang media, sejurus selepas mahkamah menolak permohonannya, hari ini, Nizar berkata: “Ini adalah risiko paling besar yang dihadapi oleh negara masa kini dan kita perlu perbetulkannya. Keputusan mahkamah itu mengketepikan prinsip-prinsip yang ditetapkan dalam perlembagaan.”

Nizar juga berkata dia belum membuat keputusan samada akan merayu berhubung keputusan itu yang mengistiharkan Datuk Seri Zambry Abd Kadir sebagai menteri besar Perak yang sah.

“Kami akan teliti keputusan bertulis penghakiman dan kemudiannya membuat keputusan,” katanya sambil meminta penyokongnya supaya bertenang.

“Ini adalah hari yang paling sedih bagi Malaysia kerana ia membuktikan sistem penghakiman negara adalah tidak bebas. Sasaran kita sekarang ini ialah merampas semula Perak.

“Rakyat ingin melihat badan kehakiman bebas membuat keputusan. Tetapi berdasarkan apa yang didengar tadi, ia menunjukkan badan kehakiman masih tidak bebas dan dipengaruhi pihak tertentu.”

Menurut Nizar, krisis di Perak tidak sepatutnya berakhir dengan keputusan mahkamah tetapi perlu diserahkan kepada rakyat untuk menentukan siapa yang patut mewakili mereka.

Wall Street stocks fall…and debt worries

February 9, 2010

Dow Closes Below 10,000 for First Time Since Nov. 4

By JAVIER C. HERNANDEZ

The Dow Jones industrial average, one of the most watched metrics of the financial world, dipped below the 10,000 threshold on Monday, delivering a psychological setback as investors sought to overcome fears of a faltering global recovery.

At the close of trading on Monday, the Dow settled at 9,908.39, its lowest close in three months.

Lingering fears over a debt crisis in Europe helped trigger the Dow’s fall. As several countries across the Atlantic grapple with swelling deficits, investors spent Monday trying to gauge how seriously American banks would suffer if European governments could not pay back their debt.

Analysts said the Dow’s drop below 10,000 probably did not mean much for the future of the stock market, but they noted it had a deeper psychological effect for Wall Street.

“Investors and traders find solace in 10,000,” said Jeffrey A. Hirsch, editor of The Stock Trader’s Almanac. “While it may not be important technically, falling below that level indicates that the whole economic picture is not as rosy as everyone had thought.”

The 10,000 level, first reached in 1999, has proved to be one of the hardest to sustain as economic growth has slowed over the past decade.

The Dow’s surge beyond the 10,000 in November was considered a symbol of the strength of the recovery, coming in the midst of a high-powered rally for stocks. But now, as the financial world attempts to regain its footing following Europe’s debt woes and broader concerns about the pace of recovery, investors worry it may take some time before the market can put 10,000 behind it.

It was an up-and-down day for Wall Street as investors sought to undo some of the damage of last week’s searing losses.

The broader Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index fell 0.9 percent, and the technology-dominated Nasdaq was down 0.7 percent.

Jitters over the health of the global recovery lingered. Investors were busy predicting the effects of huge deficits in countries like Greece, Spain, and Portugal on financial institutions in the United States, which could be vulnerable to losses on foreign loans.

Traders seemed skeptical of reassurances over the weekend from the Group of Seven finance ministers, who pledged to closely monitor the situation in Greece but provided no firm plans for reining in huge deficits in Europe. In addition, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner expressed confidence on Saturday that Europe could handle the crisis in Greece, which is scrambling to pay off mountains of debt from years of carefree spending.

“You can tell investors there’s no contagion, but it doesn’t matter, because people start to think there’s more than one cockroach,” said Thomas J. Lee, chief United States equity strategist at JPMorgan Chase. “Right now, it’s still a little wait and see.”

Bill Stone, chief investment strategist for PNC Wealth Management, said traders had grown nervous that a default in Greece could ripple through global credit markets and make the cost of lending extremely high. He said the European situation had brought back memories of the collapse of the United States housing market, and how it brought the broader economy down with it.

“People worry that this is the straw that breaks the camel’s back again,” Mr. Stone said.

The cost of insuring debt eased in Greece and Spain on Monday, suggesting that investors were more confident that those nations would be able to repay their debt. It continued to rise in Portugal.

Overseas, markets in Europe were higher after a week of wild swings. The FTSE 100 in London closed 0.62 percent higher, the CAC-40 in Paris climbed 1.22 percent, and the DAX in Frankfurt rose 0.93 percent. Stock markets in Portugal were down, while Spanish markets posted gains.

In Asia, stocks were lower overnight. The Nikkei in Tokyo fell more than 1 percent, and the Hang Seng in Hong Kong shed 0.58 percent.

The euro remained near a nine-month low, trading at slightly less than $1.37, amid concern that euro-using countries would have difficulty selling bonds to finance their debt.

Oil, which fell 7.5 percent over two days last week, was up modestly on Monday, climbing 0.4 percent to $71.44 a barrel.

The market has declined now for four consecutive weeks, stirring talk that it might be due for a correction of 10 percent or more. Analysts expect volatility to continue this week as investors weigh the fallout of Europe’s debt situation. There does not appear to be much on the calendar this week with the potential to sway markets significantly: economic data is light, and the flood of fourth-quarter results from companies is abating.

Zambry Or Nizar The Perak MB – Decision On Today

By: Ramjit

PUTRAJAYA, Feb 7 (Bernama) — The conundrum of who is the rightful menteri besar of Perak will be resolved on Tuesday (Feb 9) when the five-man Federal Court bench pronounces its ruling.

The bench, led by Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, will decide whether Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir, 47, of the Barisan Nasional (BN) retains the post or his predecessor Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, 52, of the Pakatan pact of DAP-PKR-PAS reclaims the office.

The judgment will also determine the constitutional issue of whether a head of state can look beyond the legislature to decide if the head of government has lost the confidence of the majority of the elected representatives.

Besides Alauddin, the other members of the bench are Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Arifin Zakaria and Federal Court judges Datuk Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, Datuk Wira Ghazali Mohd Yusoff and Datuk Abdull Hamid Embong.

This is the final step in the appeal by Mohammad Nizar in his attempt to reclaim the post of menteri besar. Nevertheless, the losing party in a court case can apply to the Federal Court to review its own ruling under Rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court to challenge the constitutional points.

The five-man bench had deferred its judgment on Nov 5 last year after having heard submissions in the appeal from counsel representing both Mohammad Nizar and Dr Zambry.

The conflict over who the rightful menteri besar is arose last year after three Pakatan representatives quit their parties to become independent state assemblymen, leaving Pakatan and the BN with 28 assemblymen each in the 59-seat Perak legislative assembly.

They are Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang) and Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu (Changkat Jering), who resigned from PKR on Jan 30, and DAP assemblyman Hee Yit Foong (Jelapang) who followed in their footsteps four days later. All of them declared themselves BN-friendly independents.

The Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, then asked Mohammad Nizar, who is Pasir Panjang assemblyman, to step down as menteri besar and swore in Dr Zambry in February last year after declaring that the BN had the majority in the state assembly.

Mohammad Nizar initiated legal proceedings on Feb 13 last year, seeking a declaration that he is the rightful menteri besar of Perak and an injunction to bar Dr Zambry from discharging his duties as the menteri besar.

In May last year, the High Court reinstated Mohammad Nizar as the legitimate menteri besar but the Court of Appeal reversed that decision and declared Dr Zambry’s appointment as Perak menteri besar constitutional.