Transkrip Penuh Perbicaraan Anwar Ibrahim
Kredit kepada: malaysianstory.wordpress.com
Mahkamah Tinggi J3
Dihadapan Yang Arif Dato’ Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah
Pihak-pihak: Seperti terdahulu [dengan kehadiran Raymond Leong bagi pihak Majlis Peguam]
[09:25 am]
JB: Bicara permohonan No: 44-127-2010
MY: Pihak-pihak seperti yang sama. Pagi ini untuk pendengaran permohonan bagi menangguhkan prosiding
Permohonan penangguhan prosiding
Hujahan Pemohon
KS: This application is supported by affidavit DSAI. We are asking for a stay of proceeding, pending disposal of appeal by the Court of Appeal which is filed yesterday. Refer to DSAI affidavit, the basis of application at para 7 that the order that YA given is a final order and therefore it is appealable to the Court of Appeal.
We must show that it is final order. Refer to s.50(1) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 [Tag 2][read] in relation of jurisdiction of Court of Appeal for criminal appeal.
We have the word ‘decision’ in s.3 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964. The meaning of ‘decision’ means any judgment … [read] that finally disposed the right of the parties.
Refer Tag 4 decision of Federal Court against YA decision will not be apply here. The discussion at page 7 of Tag 4. Various cases referred on this issue but it is about the ‘finality of the order’.
It is final order for these reasons, if the appeal succeed or if the Lordship made a decision in our favour for the supply of s.112 st, then YA of course have ruled and the ruling was very clear adopted the submission of MY. What came up in this application is whether the hunch we have is related to non-consensual intercourse against the order of nature. YA have taken the approached bet 377B and 377C is the enhancement of penalty. YA decision that the offence is the same. The reason by YA does not back up our ruling here. I put it this way, the evidence talk about the chicken, but the charge talks about the duck. It is the position here, the evidence by SP1 relates to non-consensual sex, if the statement under s.112 or any other statement that have been supplied to us will be able to shows contradiction, namely it would be consensual coz the charge is under s.377B. I said this because the effect of this would be for impeachment.
Refer to Tag 5, case of Metrolim [][][read] but this is go beyond that, the evidence in court which contradict the charge. The position that we said, it is the end of the case, therefore it is final order, and not an interlocutory order, it may be in term as a ruling but it finally dispose the right of the parties.
With regards of the proceeding if the application is not allowed, then if we succeed, this proceeding will be nugatory. Refer to Kosma’ case [read]. What are special circumstances? In the DSAI affidavit, special circumstances no. 2, if the stay is not allowed, the proceeding will be nugatory. In the case of Brad Andrew and …
Refer to [] [read]
Here, it is a nugatory if the court does not allowed a stay, there is other circumstances, it is the 1st time this kind of situation came up in this country, whereby the evidence given in court, statement given under oath does not reflection the charge itself. This is what happen here. MY refers to s.422 CPC, speak of irregularity, curable, but this go beyond irregularity, the impact explode the whole charge. MY also refer to s.167 EA [read].
If the evidence of PW1 is rejected, worthless, more independent evidence cannot save the position.
Refer to Tag 10 of PP bundle. S.167 and the other laws, S.167 applies in civil and criminal case, in the case of Juraimi [read].
We saying that without the evidence of SP1, excluded in the point that demolishing the charge, S.167 or S.422 will not apply. Even if they bring a million witnesses after that, it will waste the court time and the money of the tax payer. It is as simple as that. Much obliged, under that circumstances, we pray YA to allow this application.
Hujahan Responden
MY: This application for stay, it has been misconceived, the file following the appeal notice, the notice is related to ruling by the court. The issue here not whether or not SP1 should be impeach, but whether or not the hunch entitle the defence is entitle for S.112 statement and if they’re then we will supply to the defence. Next is whether there is a material discrepancy. We’re saying about the hunch, we did not go to that yet. So, as far as PP is concern, S.3 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964 preclude the Notice of Appeal so there is no basis for a stay this morning.
If I refer to S.3, Courts of Judicature Act 1964 [read]
The phrase of ‘any ruling’ to be read disjunctively, in fact this have been the stand of this court, any ruling is still a ruling, and therefore it is unappealable.
The case of Raymond Chia and case of PP v RK Menon [Tag 5][read]. So at Tag 4 is the case where the defence asked for the statement made in the course of investigation[][], therefore it is admissible and defence is entitle for it.
The court agreed and ordered for it to be supplied, the PP appeal, but the court say it is unappealable [read].
Here the question of supply do not arise, the issue is whether there was a hunch and the basis of the hunch? If not about the right to the statement.
Refer to Tag 4, it concern of ruling made pursuance to the defence application, it come from the other phrase ‘finally dispose the right of the parties’. Here, KS talk about interlocutory, I refer to [Tag 1] the word ‘interlocutor / interlocutory [read]. Again, it is not final and not appealable.
Supposing that if I’m wrong, then we’ll have to see whether there is any special circumstances, referring to DSAI affidavit, there is a merit in that and something noble. Something noble is not the law, it do not give right to special circumstances.
Refer to Kosma’s case, para 20 and 21 [read]
If the merit holding No.2, the merit of the parties is no a consideration. For completeness I refer to whether it will be nugatory.
Tag 10 refered. Read S.60 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
The Federal Court reverted it back to the trial to be [][]
So, to sum up, if I may say, 1st, by virtue S.3 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964, this is a procedure ruling and do not dispose the right of the parties. Secondly, Kosma’s said even if it with merit, it is not relevant and the appeal will not be rendered nugatory. Pray for this trial to continue with SP1 evidence.
Reply
KS: MY tried to pin me down with something I say 30 yrs ago. MY refered to Raymond Chia – 1985 position, MY is living in the past, let’s go the present. This is what “decision” under S.3 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964, then there was an amendment in August 1988 said ‘finally dispose the right of the parties’. It does make a ruling in the trial appealable. The intention of Parliament, if the ruling will dispose the right of the parties. The parties here is PP and DSAI. The evidence of W is impeach render the charge worthless. There is a difference between consensual and non-consensual. The offence can’t be the same, the sentence.
YA: With due respect, I didn’t say that in my judgment.
KS: When YA agreed with MY submission. It is 2 different offences, by my analogy “duck/ chicken”?
Putting aside the Kosma’s nugatoriness, like our two applications has been allowed [][], unless if we want to take it piece by piece, the evidence without any interruption. It is more than 2 weeks. Previously, Court of Appeal have said that what YA said have been reversed. I apply for a stay. It would be in the interest of the justice.
Ct: Stand down
[10:10 am]
[10:38 am]
Mahkamah bersidang semula
JB: Kes dipanggil semula
Keputusan
YA: First, the ruling I made yesterday was a procedural ruling, it does not dispose the right of the parties. Therefore, no right of appeal. For a stay, there must be special circumstances, usually the reason is the application is with merit. However, from DSAI affidavit, there is no special circumstances, therefore the application for stay disallowed.
Mahkamah tangguh
[10:40 am]
[10:45 am]
Mahkamah bersidang semula
JB: Kes untuk sambung bicara
MY: Kes untuk sambungan pemeriksaan balas PW1
KS: I’ve an instruction to apply for a stay at Court of Appeal.
YA: Ok, no more here, must be from Court of Appeal.
KS: I’m asking for an early date.
YA: May I see the parties in chamber?
[10:47 am]
MY, NH, KS, PC, RK, SN ke kamar hakim atas arahan YA.
[10:55 am]
[10:56 am]
JB: Kes dipanggil semula
MY: Panggil SP1
SP1 – bersumpah semula dalam Bahasa Malaysia
KS: I was made to understand some witnesses for identification is here.
MY: Ezam datang 2.30 pm but Rahimi still cannot be contacted.
Q: Selepas 26. 6. 2008, ada jumpa dengan wartawan? In that year?
A: Ada. On the 26th itself, tak ada jumpa wartawan
Q: Perjumpaan dengan wartawan, boleh kamu teliti laporan ini?
[Rujuk SP1 dengan satu laporan wawancara]
YA: What is that? A press statement?
KS: An interview with Malaysia Kini.
Q: Boleh teliti laporan itu? “Diliwat tanpa rela”? Ini adalah Malaysia Kini bertarikh 15 Ogos 2008.
MY: It is hearsay, but you can refer W on that but just to refresh memory. If KS asked the W, whether remember the interview, but not to the content. Because it is as good as tendering the document in court.
KS: If he deny the interview, I will call the press.
YA: Now SP1 can read 1st, then confirm.
[SP1 baca laporan / wawancara secara senyap]
YA: Habis baca?
A: Ya
KS: You confirm that this is your interview? Adakah yang dicatit benar?
YA: As to his statement?
KS: Yes
A: Ya, there is one thing “Ini kali pertama diliwat”. Ada kesilapan di sini “Ini kali pertama kamu diliwat”. The answer is correct.
Q: The answer is correct?
A: Yes
Q: No mistake what so ever?
A: Yes
MY: Ini masalah saya, benda ini tak boleh masuk, so apa yang correct, yang tak correct? Ini untuk refresh memory, now you’re referring to the content. Ini masalah, mahkamah tak tahu apa content dia begitu juga saya. Now, no longer to that, it is inadmissible.
YA: No short cut, you have to go one by one.
KS: Ada kesilapan di sana?
A: Ya
KS: Can we mark that?
YA: No, you can’t mark that. There is no point of marking because it is inadmissible.
Q: Apa kesilapan yang ada? Muka surat?
A; Muka surat 3 ada kesilapan.
Q: Ini kali pertma kamu diliwat? Ya pertama kali
A: ya
Q: Ini yang dicatit tidak benar?
A; Saya tersilap interpret soalan
Q: Yang lain ok?
A: Can I go thru one by one
Q: You dah gone thru?
[SP1 tiada jawapan]
KS: You can go thru that again
[SP1 membaca semula wawancara tersebut secara senyap]
Q: The rest is correct?
A: Looks like it
Q: Is the rest ok?
A: You are trying to trap me
MY: Saya tak nampak nilai soalan ini
KS: You tak tahu apa soalan ini?
YA: Benda-benda ini akan jadi benda tak berguna, we don’t have it, apa yang benar, apa tak yang benar, document itu tak ada pada court
KS: We will supply it to the court
YA: Yang lain benar, apa yang benar tak tahu?
KS: Ok
Q: Why you look so scared?
A: You’re trying to trap me, I cannot confirm 100% this is what I said.
Q: You cannot confirm what you said in page 3?
A: Yes
Q: The rest is ok?
A: Maybe ada, tapi saya tak nampak lagi ada yang salah atau tidak, jadi saya tak berani confirm 100%
Q: Kamu bohong?
A: Maksud saya [saksi tak sempat habiskan jawapan]
Q: Bukan maksud, tetapi apa yang ada di sana, Liwat muka surat 1 “dia tak pernah diliwat sebelum ini?”
A: Maksud saya diliwat [jawapan dipotong oleh KS]
Q: Dia tak pernah diliwat sebelum ini?
A: Ada first page. You are trying to put the words[][]]
YA: What is the evidence? You keep asking apa yang ada di situ, apa yang tidak ada di situ.
Q: Ada bagitahu reporter, bahawa awak diliwat oleh Anwar untuk kali yang pertama berlaku ke atas dirinya dan awak tak pernah diliwat sebelum ini?
You don’t argue
A: Jawapan saya, saya ada bagitahu begitu
Q: Diliwat adalah kali pertama?
A: Ya
YA: You dah tanya tadi
Q: Saya katakan kamu telah berbohong di makamah ini?
A: Tak setuju
Q: Kamu bohong di mahkamah apabila kata ada jumpa dengan TPM pada masa itu pada 24 Jun 2008 bahawa awak diliwat oleh DSAI?
A: Tolong ulang
Q: You’re telling lies, that why you want me to repeat. Kamu bohong di makamah apabila kata ada jumpa dengan TPM pada masa itu dan buat aduan pada 24 Jun 2008 bahawa awak diliwat oleh DSAI beberapa kali?
A: Tidak setuju
Q: Berbalik kepada keterangan dalam makamah, ada 2 adik-beradik? Kamu yang sulong?
A: Setuju
Q: You’re from a broken family?
A: Ya, ibubapa saya bercerai
Q: Ibubapa bercerai?
A: Ya
Q; Sebelum Mac 2008, adakah benar kamu menyokong BN khasnya UMNO? Penyokong kuat?
MY: Apa relevan ini, penyokong kuat ke tak? The issue is 26 Jun
KS: This is political conspiracy
MY: The law say that this is something collateral, may or may not allow by the court. I think it is S.148 EA [read]. I must say it come under (b) and (c)[][]
KS: Cross exam of a W normally in wide latitude, we are saying there is a political conspiracy. By the TPM then, why the Deputy of UMNO he went to see? We are saying there is political conspiracy if YA looked at the circumstances and would be relevant.
MY: Not long ago, before the Session Court, the defence refer to Zuma’s case, went to the apex court, one of the basis to strike out the charge is political conspiracy. [][] More than 10 years ago, political conspiracy is not relevant. Unless it is so necessary, I did not see the relevant or important of the question. SP1 is a very young man, why asked about broken family and political conspiracy?
KS: MY referring to cases but did not produce it. Let’s trash it out whether it is relevant. It is[][]
YA: At this stage I allow the question.
Q: Penyokong kuat BN?
A: Saya sokong BN tapi undi saya pada Sivarasa and Elizabeth Wong, mereka adalah wakil di tempat saya.
Q: Sokong BN, tetapi undi PKR?
A: This is free country
YA: Itu komen, bukan soalan
MY: Exactly what this S.148 EA is try to prevent
KS: It goes to the credibility.
MY: It is not for you to decide.
YA: Other question.
Q: Penyokong kuat BN dan undi PKR, ini pengkhianat?
A: Pengkhianat kepada siapa, tidak setuju
Q: 24 Jun 2008, ada nyatakan aduan pada TPM telah diliwat oleh DSAI?
A: Setuju
Q: Cadang pada kamu apa yang terjadi dirancang oleh kamu dengan bantuan polis dan TPM?
A: Boleh eloborate apa yang terjadi, apa yang jadi?
Q: Diliwat 26hb dengan bantuan polis dan TPM?
A: Tak setuju
Q: Kenapa berjumpa dengan DSP Rodwan?
A: Saya ceritakan masalah saya telah diliwat beberapa kali di dalam dan di luar negara
Q: Tadi kata yang pertama sahaja, ada dalam hitam putih, dalam Malaysia kini?
A: Tak setuju
Q: Kamu pembohong besar?
A: Tak setuju
YA: Let me see S.148, Bar Council is here isn’t it?
Q: Berbohong besar atas pernyataan tadi, kata yang pertama?
A: Tak setuju
YA: Proceed
Q: Ada ambil langkah-langkah untuk betulkan apa di dalam Malaysia kini?
A: Tidak buat apa-apa, saya tak baca sebab saya tak tahu
Q: Bukan dalam Malaysia kini sahaja, ini adalah kenyataan umum, bukan 1 atau 2, banyak?
A: Saya salah interpret soalan
MY: Dia dah jawab soalan
KS: MY help to answer for you, even he’s not under oath.
Q: Because you didn’t read?
A: Saya terlepas pandang
Q: Adakah biasa beri press conference then betulkan apa yang benar?
A: Saya biasa baca
Q: Ada blog?
A: Ada
Q: Kamu biasa baca?
A: Ya. Mistake
Q: Beri amaran sekali lagi, cakap yang benar? Bolah dipenjarakan 7 tahun?
A: Ya
KS: I don’t want you to go to prison, that why I keep reminding you.
MY: That is not for KS to decide.
YA: Please ask question KS.
Q: You’re not telling the truth?
A: No
Q: Kejadian 26 Jun 2008?
A: Ya
Q: 26 Jun tak mandi? Langsung tidak?
A: Saya ada bilas badan
Q: Bukan mandi?
A: Of course morning 26hb I took a bath
Q: Lepas pagi?
A: Lepas kejadian saya tak mandi dan hanya bilas, saya nak simpan bukti
Q: Buat laporan polis 28hb? Apa ini? Simpan bukti 26hb? Kenapa tak pergi balai polis terus? Bukti ada di sana?
YA: Apa soalannya?
Q: 26hb ada peluang buat laporan polis selepas kejadian?
A: Ada peluang
Q: Tidak menggunakan peluang itu walaupun ada?
A: Tidak
Q: 27hb pun ada peluang?
A: Ada
Q: Tetapi tak guna peluang itu?
A: Tidak
Q: Kenapa?
A: Saya ingin dapatkan nasihat kerana ini melibatkan maruah dan masa depan saya
Q: Buat laporan pada 28hb? Rujuk P3, pada 5.55 ptg pada 28 Jun? Kenapa buat laporan polis pada hari itu dan bukan sebelumnya?
A: Saya nak dapatkan nasihat dan pandangan seperti pakcik saya, Tuah, Dato’ Mumtaz, rakan saya Rahimi dan saudara Ezam dan seorang guru agama pada 28hb pagi
Q: Balik pada 26hb, nyatakan ada pergi kondo ini? Tiba bila?
A: 2.45 ptg
Q: Hantar fail pada DSAI?
A: Ya
Q: Siapa beri fail?
A: En Ibrahim yaacob, ketua staf DSAI
Q: Bila dapat fail?
A: 1.30
Q: 1.30 dapat fail dan pergi tempat 2.45?
A: Ya
Q: You drove there?
A: Ya
Q: Dari PJ, pejabat PKR?
A: Ya, bukan dari pejabat DSAI
KS: It’s doesn’t matter.
Q: Ambil masa lebih dari 1 jam?
A: Ya
Q: Tak berapa jauh bukan?
A: Tidak
Q: Ada pergi mana-mana sebelum pergi condo?
A: Semasa saya keluar dari pejabat, saya perasan ada motor ekori saya, saya cuba melarikan diri sebab itu ambil masa yang lama untuk sampai
Q: 2.45 sampai tempat ini?
A: Ya
Q: Terus pergi mana?
A: Visitor parking, P4
Q: Lepas itu?
A: Dari parking, naik lif ke P2, naik lif lagi, terus ke Unit kediaman En Hassanuddin
Q: Straight to this condo, 11-5-1?
A: Ya, saya pergi ke unit 11-5-1
Q: Sebelah adalah unit lain?
A: Di hadapan ada
Q: Ada pernah pergi unit itu? Sebelum kejadian?
A: Tidak pernah
Q: Unit ini berapa jauh dari unit kamu tadi, 11-5-1?
A: Berhadapan, Unit 11-5-2
Q: Siapa tuan punya?
A: En. Hassanuddin, tuan rumah yang sama
Q: Ada pernah jumpa En Hassanudin?
A: Ya
Q: Berapa jauh jarak Unit 11-5-1 dengan jarak Unit 11-5-2?
A: Dari sini ke jarak Dato CV
YA: Saya rekod dari kandang saksi ke hujung meja ke dua peguam
Q: Bila masuk dalam unit ini, pintu terbuka?
A: Semasa saya sampai pintu tertutup tetapi tak berkunci
Q; Apa yang dinyatakan dalam keterangan terdahulu, DSAI ada dalam unit itu?
A: Ya
KS: Some part of evidence is in camera,
YA: Finish up yang not in camera
KS: I need time to peruse the NOP 1st
YA: Usually Witness yang minta in camera not the lawyer. Tangguh 2.15 pm.
Petang ini dalam camera, members of public tak boleh ada dalam makamah
MY: Kali terakhir dulu, observer dibenarkan
YA: Ya
Court adjourned
[11:55 am]
[02.30 pm]
Sesi In-Camera
[03:08 pm]
Prosiding di Mahkamah Terbuka
[03:08 pm]
Prosiding di Mahkamah Terbuka
Q: Semalam ada kata jumpa Ezam Md Nor?
A: Ya
Q: Boleh cam Ezam?
A: Ya
KS: Ini Ezam?
A: Ya
Mohd Ezam bin Mohd Nor dicamkan
MY: Ada seorang lagi, investigating officer tak dapat mencari dia semalam, masih mencari lagi
KS: What we do now?
Q: 27hb ada menyertai meeting?
A: Tidak
Q: Ada perjumpaan di pejabat PKR?
A: Ada tetapi saya tak pasti kerana saya tak masuk
KS: Can we stand down for a while? 10 minutes?
YA: Stand down
[03:03 pm]
[03:30pm]
JB: kes dipanggil semula
Q: Pada 27hb Jun 2008, hari Jumaat, pada 10 pagi, ada pergi ke majlis di Merchant Square?
A: Ya, ada pergi lebih kurang 9.30 pagi
Q: Lebih kurang 11 pagi hantar sms ke En Ibrahim Yaacob dengan kandungan “[][][]”?
A: Saya tak ingat
Q: Ada hantar sms, contact?
A: tak ingat, tetapi everyday saya contact dia
Q: Lebih kurang 11.10 minit, kamu ada hantar sms lagi “urgent … trainning… they want to book a flight tickets….?
A: Tak ingat
Q: Ada ke kediaman DSAI lebih kurang pukul 5?
A: Ada, meeting blogger dan AI club
Q: Kamu ditunjukkan gambar pada pukul 7.05 petang?
A: Ya
Q: You look quite happy serving tea?
A: Ya
KS: Gambar as exhibit
MY: Remain as ID till the end of this case, in Dato’ Harun case, Federal Court has said that a document if remain as ID, it should not be considered.
YA: DO you want to mark it as ID?
KS: It doesn’t matter because he admitted to it.
Q: You admitted that you went there and served tea?
A: Yes
Q: Let is remain as ID for what ever it’s worth.
Q: 28hb Jun keesokan hari ada contact dengan pejabat PKR?
A: Saya tak ingat
Q: Ada jumpa dengan sesiapa pada hari itu?
A: Pakcik saya, Tuah, pagi itu saya ke rumah seorang guru agama, saya panggil ‘Atuk” di Gombak, saya tak tahu nama dia
Q: Orang lain? Dato’ Mumtaz?
A: Tidak jumpa Dato’ Mumtaz. Di Hospital ada jumpa Rahimi yang melawat saya di OSCC, selain dari Dr.
Q: Bila dapat nasihat dari Dato’ Mumtaz?
MY: KS tak boleh assumed, must lay foundation 1st.
KS: He said that he get advice.
MY: No, he said that he went to seek advice, not get advice.
YA: Then you should ask whether he did get the advice.
Q: Adakah dapat nasihat dari Dato’ Mumtaz untuk buat laporan?
A: Tidak, dia tak setuju untuk saya buat laporan
Q: Buat laporan atas nasihat siapa?
A: On my own will
KS: I will stop at this point, will reserved cross, which I can only do at the end of this case.
MY: Can I start my re-exam?
KS: Don’t be hasty
YA: You nak minta tangguh lagi?
KS: Yes, to tight up beads and end
YA: They are asking for an adjournment.
MY: I can start my re-exam. I only have 3 questions.
KS: It should be at the end of the case.
YA: If it 3 question, you can wait.
MY: I thought that the witness has waited for so long.
YA: Tomorrow?
KS: Since we already filed in NOA, we intent to apply to Court of Appeal for a stay, we need time to do that.
YA: MY?
MY: In the interest of the justice, what ever it means, no objection.
KS: It can only be one thing, for a fair trial
YA: Tangguh hingga 31 Mei 2010.
Court adjourned. [03:42 pm]
Anwar did it to me before: Saiful
LIVE REPORTS [Scroll to the bottom for latest updates]
The High Court dismisses the defence's application for a stay of proceedings pending an appeal to the judge's decision yesterday. Cross-examination of Saiful continues.
8.50am: Solicitor-General (II) Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden arrives at the Jalan Duta Court Complex with his team of prosecutors - Nordin Hassan, CK Wong and Noorin Badaruddin.
8.53am: Defence lawyers Param Cumaraswamy, CV Prabhakaran and Sankara Nair arrive.
Some members of the public have queued up to get into the courtroom since 5am for a front-row seat on Day 4 of the cross-examination of star witness Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.
8.58am: Opposition Leader Anwar ibrahim arrives with his wife, PKR president Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail and daughter, Nurul Hana.
Meanwhile, Anwar apologised to The Sun reporter S Tamarai Chelvi who was verbally abused and threatened by a local councillor and an unidentified man while covering the court proceedings on Monday.
Anwar was quoted by The Sun to have called Tamarai about 1.40pm yesterday during a break in the court hearing to express his regret over the incident which took place after the court stood down during his sodomy trial.
T
amarai, who was covering the trial, had told the two men who were talking loudly behind her to keep quiet when in court.
One of them, Klang municipal councillor M Suntharajoo had hurled derogatory words at her and the two men had also allegedly threatened her with physical harm. Tamarai lodged a police report on Tuesday.
Selangor exco Ronnie Liu was reported to have said the state government would also launch a probe into the matter and had apologised to the reporter.
However, no apology was forthcoming from the Klang councillor.
9.15am: Lead counsel in the defence team Karpal Singh arrives in court with lawyer Ram Karpal.
9.25am: Court in session
Before continuing the defence's cross-examination of key witness Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, the court will first hear the application for a stay in proceedings pending an appeal against the judge's decision yesterday not allow Anwar Ibrahim access to the police statements made by the complainant of the sodomy allegation.
Lead defence counsel Karpal Singh applies for a stay of proceedings as soon as the court is called into session.
"The proceedings should be stayed until the appeal is heard by the Court of Appeal," Karpal tells the court.
The defence is seeking to obtain the statements given by Saiful to the police to determine whether there was a contradiction in the key witness's testimony where he said the alleged sodomy was non-consensual despite that the charge (under Penal Code section 377b) against Anwar was for consensual sex.
Judge Mohd Zabidin had yesterday ruled that the attorney-general has wide discretionary power to charge a person under whichever section he deems appropriate.
Under the Penal Code, there are two alternatives for prosecutors to lay sodomy charges covering either consensual or non-consensual acts.
The decision to charge Anwar with consensual sodomy had long raised questions marks among observers, given Saiful's repeated claims that he was forced into having sex with his boss.
9.35am: Defence lawyer Karpal argues that Saiful's police statements and the sodomy charge against Anwar raises questions on the matter of consensual and non-consensual sex against the order of nature.
"This regards to the credibility of this witness,” he said. "If the appeal is allowed, then Saiful's credibility would be affected and the case will crumble.”
9.42am: Karpal adds that Saiful's testimony that the sodomy act was non-consensual will “implode the charge” that Anwar is facing as the opposition leader is charged with consensual sodomy.
"If the evidence of SP 1 (Saiful) is in question, no amount of further evidence will support the case."
9.47am: Defence lawyer Karpal Singh continues with his submission. He says even if a million of witnesses are called or a ton of evidence is produced, it would go to waste if Saiful's credibility is in question.
In arguing for a stay in proceedings, Karpal says it would be a waste of taxpayers' money if the trial is allowed to continue.
9.50am: Lead counsel for the prosecution team, Solicitor-General (II) Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden argues that the judge's ruling is a procedural ruling and hence, thus not appealable.
In rebutting Karpal, he says merit is not considered as a special circumstance for a stay in proceedings.
"Hence, the application for a stay should be dismissed."
10.10am: High Court judge Mohd Zabidin calls for a break. He will announce his decision on whether he would grant a stay in proceedings when court resumes.
10.38am: Court back in session
Justice Mohamad Zabidin dismisses the defence's application for a stay of proceedings pending an appeal on his decision yesterday. He says the trial should proceed.
According to him, there are no special circumstances in the application to warrant a stay.
Mohamad Zabidin adds that yesterday's decision was a procedural ruling and hence it was not appealable.
"However, even if the defence feels it was appealable, the proceeding cannot be stayed."
10.43pm: Judge Mohd Zabidin allows for a short break.
10.45pm: Court resumes. 
Defence lawyer Karpal said he will meet up with Court of Appeal president Alauddin Md Sheriff to get an early date for the hearing of his appeal.
Judge Mohd Zabidin asked both parties - the defence and prosecution teams - to meet in chambers.
10.57am: Court resumes.
Star witness Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan called to the stand. This is the fourth day in a row where he is being cross-examined by top defence lawyer Karpal Singh.
11am: Karpal shows Saiful the Malaysiakini report dated Aug 15, 2008, titled 'Saya diliwat tanpa rela'.
Solicitor-General (II) Mohd Yusof protests against the report being used.
However, Justice Mohd Zabidin allows the defence to proceed. Saiful is asked to read the report silently.
The report, dated Aug 15, 2008, was based on a press conference held by Saiful after he swore on the Quran at the Masjid Wilayah Persekutuan that he was sodomised by Anwar.
11.07am: After Saiful finished reading the lengthy Malaysiakini report, Karpal asks: Is the report correct?
Saiful answers: "There is an error where I said this was the first time I was sodomised. I silap interpret soalan. (I misinterpreted the question)."
According to the Malaysiakini report, which included a transcript of Saiful's interview with journalists:
Wartawan: Ini kali pertama kamu diliwat?
Mohd Saiful: Ya, pertama kali.
Saiful maintains that he had been sodomised by Anwar before the June 26, 2008 incident.
11.11am: Defence lawyer Karpal continues quizzing Saiful.
Karpal: The rest of the article is correct?
Saiful: Don't threaten me.
Karpal: Yang lain benar? (The rest is correct?) Why are you so frightened?
Saiful: I cannot confirm this is correct. I cannot confirm 100 percent the article is correct.
11.23am: Saiful disagrees that he lied in court in saying that when he met Najib on June 24, 2008, he told the then deputy prime minister that he had been sodomised by Anwar several times.
Karpal: Prior to March 2008, were you a strong supporter of BN and Umno?
However, Solicitor-General II Mohd Yusof raises an objection. He questions the relevancy of the question.
11.30am: Judge Mohd Zabidin allows the question.
Karpal: You were a strong supporter of BN and Umno but you betrayed them. You are a pengkhianat (traitor)?
Saiful: Tak setuju, undi bebas.
Saiful then claims that Anwar sodomised him in Hong Kong, Bangkok and Singapore.
Saiful: Yes, I was a strong (BN-Umno) supporter but I voted for PKR Subang parliamentarian R Sivarasa and PKR Bukit Lanjan state representative Elizabeth Wong.
11.42am: Cross-examination of Saiful continues.
Karpal: Awak mandi pada Jun 26?
Saiful: Saya mandi pagi.
Karpal: Ada awak mandi serta cuci 'anus' selepas kejadian?
Saiful: Saya bilas (rinse).
Karpal: Kenapa tak cuci?
Saiful: Saya mahu simpan bukti.
Karpal: Kenapa tak buat lapuran polis masa 26 haribulan?
Saiful: Tidak.
Karpal: 27 haribulan, kenapa tak 'lodge report'?
Saiful: Saya takut ia akan 'affect' masa depan saya.
11.54am: Defence lawyer Karpal applies for proceedings to be done in camera. Judge Mohd Zabidin agrees.
The court breaks for lunch and will resume at 2.15pm.
The High Court judge reminds members of the public and journalists that they are not allowed to attend the proceedings when court resumes after lunch.
2.20pm: Despite the judge reminding that the court proceedings will be in camera, passes have been given out to reporters and many of them have queued up in front of the courtroom.
Photographers are also standing by when proceedings are expected to resume soon.
It is understood that the in camera proceedings would be short. Both the accused Anwar Ibrahim and lead defence counsel Karpal Singh enter the courtroom. Complainant Saiful is already inside.
3.12pm: Press allowed to enter courtroom after in camera proceeding but court is now in recess.
3.30pm: Court proceeding resumes
Cross examination of Saiful continues. Answering questions from lead defense counsel Karpal, Saiful acting on the advice of National Athlete Welfare Foundation chairperson Mumtaz Jaafar.
"I did it on my own will," he said.
3.40pm: Court adjourns. Hearing to continue from May 31 to June 4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Saiful hanya bilas selepas diliwat untuk simpan bukti
Saksi utama yang juga pengadu dalam kes liwat Ketua Pembangkang, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim - Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan berkata beliau silap mentafsirkan soalan wartawan apabila diajukan sama ada ini kali pertama dia diliwat.
 |
Peguam Cara Negara II, Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden membantah.
Namun, Mohd Zabidin menolak bantahan itu dan membenarkan Karpal untuk meneruskan soal balasnya. Saiful kemudiannya diminta membaca laporan itu secara senyap.
Laporan bertarikh 15 Ogos 2008 ini adalah berdasarkan sidang akhbar yang diadakan oleh Saiful selepas beliau bersumpah laknat di Masjid Wilayah Persekutuan bahawa dia diliwat oleh Anwar.
Selepas Saiful selesai membaca laporan Malaysiakini yang agak panjang itu, Karpal bertanya: Adakah laporan itu betul?
Saiful menjawap: “Ada kesilapan bila saya kata ini kali pertama saya diliwat. I silap interpret soalan.."
Berikut transkrip wawancara Malaysiakini dengan Saiful.
Wartawan: Ini kali pertama kamu diliwat?
Mohd Saiful: Ya, pertama kali.
Karpal kemudiannya terus mengasak Saiful.
Karpal: Adakah bahagian lain artikel itu betul?
Saiful: Jangan ugut saya.
Karpal: Yang lain benar? Mengapa awak begitu takut?
Saiful: Saya tidak boleh mengesahkan ia betul. Saya tidak boleh mengesahkan artikel itu 100 peratus betul.
Berikut beberapa sedutan perbicaraan selepas itu.
Karpal: Awak mandi pada Jun 26?
Saiful: Saya mandi pagi.
Karpal: Ada awak mandi serta cuci 'anus' selepas kejadian?
Saiful: Saya bilas.
Karpal: Kenapa tak cuci?
Saiful: Saya mahu simpan bukti.
Karpal: Kenapa tak buat laporan polis masa 26 haribulan?
Saiful: Tidak.
Karpal: 27 haribulan, kenapa tak 'lodge report'?
Saiful: Saya takut ia akan 'affect' masa depan saya.
Karpal kemudiannya memohon prosiding diadakan secara tertutup. Hakim Mohd Zabidin bersetuju.
Mahkamah kemudian berehat untuk makan tengahari dan akan bersambung semula pada 2.15 petang ini.
Pertuduhan mengikut Seksyen 377B Kanun Keseksaan itu membawa hukuman penjara sehingga 20 tahun dan sebatan jika disabit kesalahan.
-----------------------------------------------------
Saiful: Saya tak basuh dubur kerana nak simpan bukti
KUALA LUMPUR, 13 Mei — Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan yang mengadu diliwat Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim berkata beliau tidak membasuh duburnya selepas kejadian liwat pada 26 Jun 2008 kerana mahu menyimpan bukti.
Saiful, saksi utama dalam perbicaraan kes liwat ketua pembangkang itu berkata selepas kejadian itu, beliau tidak mandi tetapi hanya membilas badannya.
Bagaimanapun, beliau berkata, pada pagi hari tersebut, sebelum kejadian, beliau mandi sepenuhnya.
Saiful berkata demikian semasa pemeriksaan balas oleh Karpal Singh yang mewakili Anwar dan juga mendakwa, beliau pernah diliwat oleh Anwar di dalam dan luar negara iaitu, Hong Kong, Singapura dan Bangkok.
Terdahulu, Mahkamah Tinggi mengetepikan permohonan Anwar bagi menangguhkan perbicaraan sementara menunggu keputusan rayuan beliau berhubung penolakan permohonannya bagi mendapatkan kenyataan saksi yang dibuat kepada polis.
Hakim Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah dalam penghakimannya berkata keputusan beliau mengenepikan permohonan bagi mendapatkan kenyataan saksi itu semalam bersifat prosedur dan ia tidak boleh dibuat rayuan.
Katanya selain itu pihak pembelaan gagal menunjukkan sebarang keadaan khas bagi membolehkan penangguhan diberikan.
Karpal juga memohon mahkamah supaya pemeriksaan balas seterusnya pada sebelah petang diadakan secara tertutup.
Keterangan Saiful pada hari keempat beliau diperiksa balas oleh Karpal itu menarik perhatian ramai termasuk Karpal Singh sambil berkata “Ooo.. mahu simpan bukti.”
Karpal: Pada 26 Jun 2008, anda tidak mandi langsung?
Saiful: Pada pagi 26 Jun itu, saya mandi sepenuhnya. Selepas kejadian saya tidak mandi tetapi hanya bilas sahaja.
Karpal: Anus, anda tidak cuci?
Saiful: Tidak. Mahu simpan bukti.
Kepada soalan Karpal mengapa beliau tidak membuat terus laporan polis pada hari kejadian kerana bukti itu masih baru, Mohd Saiful berkata beliau memang ada peluang berbuat demikian.
Saiful, bekas pembantu peribadi Anwar itu berkata beliau juga mempunyai peluang untuk membuat laporan polis pada keesokan harinya, pada 27 Jun, tetapi tidak juga berbuat demikian kerana ingin mendapatkan nasihat terlebih dahulu sebelum membuat laporan polis.
Karpal: Nasihat daripada siapa?
Saiful: Pak Cik saya Tuah (Tuah Mohamad Alip), Mumtaz (Datuk Mumtaz Jaafar), rakan saya Rahimi (Rahimi Osman), saudara Ezam (Mohamed Ezam Mohd Noor) dan guru agama.
Merujuk pada laporan di laman web Malaysiakini bertarikh 15 Ogos, 2008, Karpal meminta Mohd Saiful mengesahkan bahawa laporan yang dibuatnya kepada wartawan laman web itu sama ada wujud kesilapan di dalamnya.
Saiful diminta supaya membaca laporan dengan perlahan.
Selepas membaca beliau berkata beliau tidak dapat mengesahkan seratus peratus sama ada terdapat kesilapan di situ.
Bagaimanapun, Saiful ada mengakui terdapat kesilapan pada muka surat ketiga di laporan itu iaitu pada ayat “pertama kali diliwat”.
Kepada soalan Karpal, adakah beliau memmberitahu sedemikian kepada wartawan itu, beliau menjelaskan bahawa beliau tersilap mentafsir soalan wartawan berkenaan.
Karpal dengan nada yang keras mengingatkan Mohd Saiful supaya bercakap benar selepas beliau tidak dapat mengesahkan apa yang diberitahunya kepada wartawan laman web itu.
Ditanya adakah beliau memberitahu wartawan Malaysiakini bahawa beliau diliwat Anwar bagi kali pertama dan tidak pernah sebelum itu, Saiful berkata beliau silap mentafsirkan pertanyaan wartwan itu.
Kepada persoalan lain, Saiful menafikan cadangan Karpal bahawa beliau berbohong di mahkamah kerana semasa beliau berjumpa dengan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak yang pada masa itu Timbalan Perdana Menteri pada 24 Jun, 2008, di kediaman, Najib, beliau mengadu yang beliau diliwat.
Saiful dalam pemeriksaan balas pada hari Isnin lepas memberitahu mahkamah bahawa beliau berjumpa Najib kerana menceritakan masalahnya.
Saiful juga bersetuju dengan cadangan Karpal bahawa semasa berjumpa dengan Najib pada 24 Jun 2008, beliau ada memberitahu Najib yang beliau diliwat.
Mengenai pertemuannya dengan seorang pegawai polis pada 24 Jun 2008 SAC I Datuk Mohd Rodwan Yusof (yang kini menjawat Ketua Polis Melaka), Saiful berkata, beliau menceritakan masalahnya kepada Rodwan bahawa beliau diliwat oleh Anwar di dalam dan luar negara iaitu Hong Kong, Singapura dan Bangkok.
Beliau bagaimanapun bersetuju dengan cadangan Karpal bahawa pada Mac 2008, beliau merupakan penyokong kuat Umno dan Barisan Nasional.
“Ya, saya memang penyokong kuat Umno tetapi telah mengundi Sivarasa (R. Sivarasa, Subang) di kawasan saya dan Elizabeth Wong,” jawab Saiful sambil diikuti gelak ketawa hadirin dalam mahkamah.
Karpal: Sokong BN, tapi undi Pakatan, itu bermakna anda seorang pengkhianat bukan, setuju?
Saiful: Tidak setuju.
Sebelum Karpal meneruskan soalan Peguam Cara Negara II Datuk Mohamed Yusof Zainal Abiden membantah kerana apa relevannya soalan tersebut serta soalan Karpal kepada Saiful adakah beliau daripada keluarga yang porak peranda.
Mohamed Yusof berkata saksi merupakan seorang yang muda dan soalan-soalan Karpal Singh tidak ada kaitan dengan pertuduhan yang dihadapi oleh Anwar.
Karpal menjawab soalan ini relevan kerana bagi menunjukkan wujudnya konspirasi politik terhadap anak guamnya yang didakwa dalam tuduhan meliwat Saiful di Unit 11-5-1 Kondominium Desa Damansara, Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara, di sini antara 3.01 petang dan 4.30 petang pada 26 Jun 2008.
Pertuduhan itu membawa hukuman penjara sehingga 20 tahun dan sebatan jika disabit kesalahan.
Saiful juga berkata pada 26 Jun 2008, beliau bertolak daripada pejabat Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), di Petaling Jaya, pukul 1.30 tengah hari dan tiba ke kondominum, di tempat kejadian pukul 2.45 petang.
Menjawab soalan Karpal mengapa beliau mengambil masa selama sejam lebih, walaupun pejabat PKR ke kondomimium itu jaraknya tidak jauh, Saiful berkata semasa beliau keluar dari pejabat PKR, ada sebuah motosikal mengekorinya.
“Semasa saya keluar, saya perasan ada sebuah motosikal ikut saya, saya cuba hilangkan diri,” katanya.
Beliau berkata semasa tiba ke kondominum itu, pintu tertutup tetapi tidak berkunci.
Saiful juga bersetuju dengan cadangan Karpal bahawa semasa tiba di kondominum itu, Anwar berada di dalam bilik.
Selepas itu, Karpal memohon prosiding dijalankan secara tertutup.
Hakim Mohamad Zabidin membenarkan permohonan Karpal, bagaimanapun dengan nada bergurau beliau berkata kebiasaannya dalam kes jenayah, pihak pendakwaan yang membuat permohonan seperti ini, tetapi hari ini sebaliknya.
Mohamad Zabidin juga mengingatkan orang ramai yang berada dalam galeri awam supaya supaya tidak berada dalam mahkamah itu semasa prosiding bersambung secara tertutup pukul 2.15 petang. - Bernama
---------------------------------------------------------------
KUALA LUMPUR: Mahkamah Tinggi hari ini mengenepikan permohonan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim bagi menangguhkan perbicaraan kes liwat yang dihadapinya sementara menunggu keputusan rayuan beliau berhubung penolakkan permohonannya bagi mendapatkan kenyataan saksi yang dibuat kepada polis oleh Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan yang mendakwa diliwat oleh ketua pembangkang itu.
Hakim Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah dalam penghakimannya berkata keputusan beliau mengenepikan permohonan bagi mendapatkan kenyataan saksi itu semalam bersifat prosedur dan ia tidak boleh dibuat rayuan.
Katanya selain itu pihak pembelaan gagal menunjukkan sebarang keadaan khas bagi membolehkan penangguhan diberikan.Prosiding kemudiannya dihentikan sementara, dan ia akan bersambung dengan soal balas Mohd Saiful, 25, oleh ketua peguam Anwar, Karpal Singh.
0 comments: on "PERBICARAAN ANWAR IBRAHIM - KES LIWAT 2 - 2010 - HARI 11"
Post a Comment