Anwar gaining momentum, and his police report in fullPosted: July 1, 2008
Perhaps it is from his past experience of something eerily similar to the case we have today. Perhaps he has learnt from the 1998/1999 happenings, and has now become smart enough not to play into the hands of the “powers-that-be”. Or perhaps he has just been too well-prepared for everything. Because Anwar Ibrahim is gaining momentum. And Barisan Nasional had better watch out.
First of all, Anwar has left the Turkish Embassy. In fact, it should be stale news by now. But in leaving the embassy, he had with him guarantees from the Foreign Minister and Home Minister, both Rais Yatim and Syed Hamid Albar respectively, of his personal safety. Plus one “loose” guarantee from the Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak. The video says it all.
And then of course, there is news that Anwar has already went to the police station to file a report against both the IGP and AP for the alleged fabrication of evidence during his prosecution of the same offence back in 1998. At that time of course, most of us were aware that the court hearing didn’t go very smoothly at all, with the dates being changed when it suited them, and the “penetration that didn’t happen”.
What “penetration that didn’t happen”, you ask? Well, this one of course:
Did you know that when Sukma Dermawan was convicted in the Sessions Court in 1998 of the offence of gross indecency pursuant to section 377D of the Penal Code for allegedly permitting DSAI to insert the latter’s penis into the former’s anus, the prosecution were then in possession of a medical report that confirmed there was no evidence of anal penetration?
Find the full post here at Haris’ The People’s Parliament. He has included in his blog post a link to a pdf file with the full judgement. There was too much “legal jargon” in it for me to fully take on board, but there were a few grey areas that would test even the strongest critics of Anwar. Another part of the judgement mentioned a certain Mohd Noor Don who appeared before court to “admit” on behalf of Sukma that he not only admits to the initial charge, but also admits to other offences. The excerpt is as below:
Fourthly, the appointment of Mohd Noor Don as counsel for the second appellant in that case is rather unusual too. Ganesan, purportedly appointed by the second appellant’s sister, had been trying to see the second appellant. He as not successful in all his attempts. Instead, he was called to Bukit Aman twice to have his statements recorded. Then we have the involvement of SAC1 Musa in the appointment of Mohd Noor Don. It is very pertinent to note that SAC1 Musa admitted that Mohd Noor Don was not appointed by the second appellant before 30 September 1998 which means that he was only appointed 11 days after he had appeared in court and ‘mitigated’ for the second appellant. Even if we were to accept SAC1 Musa’s own evidence (even though we must say, in this respect, the second appellant’s version is not improbable) does the fact that he gave Mohd Noor Don’s card to the second appellant, arranged for the second appellant to call Mohd Noor Don by telephone, allowed Mohd Noor Don the use of his office to meet the second appellant, denied access by Ganesan even though at earlier stage, and also Mohd Noor Don’s tendering of the confession in mitigation (we will say more about this later), the appearance of Zulkifli Nordin in court at the behest of Ganesan to see what was happening, the denial by SAC1 Musa that Zulkifli Nordin disputed the confession even though he was shown the notes of proceedings of the court, the belated letter dated 30 September 1998 (11 days after the second appellant was charged and convicted) confirming Mohd Noor Don’s appointment, not raise some suspicion about the actions of the police relating to the confession?
Fifthly, the tendering of the confession by Mohd Noor Don ‘in mitigation’ of sentence in Criminal Case No 4-62-135-98 [the instant case]. Even unrepresented accused do not do such a thing, what more an advocate and solicitor representing an accused person. Tendering a confession stating that an accused has committed other offences in mitigation of sentence is a contradiction in terms, to say the least. When you are pleading for a lenient sentence, you simply do not inform the court that you have committed other offences!
*SAC1 Musa mentioned above is Musa Hassan, the current IGP
Definitely threw me off my chair for a bit. All very dodgy. Makes one suspicious of the integrity of those involved in the case in 1998, and gives even more concrete to the “evidence” that Anwar says he has in his hands about the IGP and AG.
And because it has taken me so long to write this particular post, even the police report lodged by Anwar Ibrahim is now on the Internet in full:
POLICE REPORT LODGED BY DATO’ SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM
1st July, 2008
I, Anwar bin Ibrahim, (NRIC No: 470810-07-5095), hereby make the following police report based on information that I have recently received.
1. This report is in relation to the investigation into the assault on me by the former IGP Tan Sri Rahim Noor on 20 September 1998. I believe Tan Sri Rahim Noor, after being prosecuted, pleaded guilty to the assault. I had lodged a police report in respect of the assault on 27.9.98.
2. In relation to the investigation into the assault, I believe that the Investigating Officer ACP Mat Zain bin Ibrahim (now Datuk Mat Zain) had conducted a thorough investigation and prepared an investigation paper (“IP”) which was presented by October 1998 to the former Attorney General Tan Sri Mokhtar Abdullah and his team which included the current Attorney General Tan Sri Gani Patail for further action.
3. The said investigation paper concluded that Tan Sri Rahim Noor was the perpetrator of the assault on me. The said paper reached a conclusion after a thorough investigation which included medical reports by Hospital KL forensic specialists such as Dr Ab. Halim Haji Mansar and Dr Zahari bin Noor and statement from at least 60 witnesses. The medical reports concluded that the injury inflicted on me was consistent with an assault.
4. Despite the contents of the Investigation paper and the medical reports already available, Tan Sri Mokhtar with the assistance of the current Attorney General Tan Sri Gani Patail then obtained the services of another doctor whom I was informed to be one Dr Abdul Rahman Yusof.
5. Doctor Rahman in an undated and second report speaks of a “reconstruction of the scene” on 14 December 2008(I think it should read 1998 ). I believe that this so-called reconstruction of the scene never happened.
6. It is an undisputable fact that Dr Rahman’s reports in relation to the assault on me were done without actually even examining me at any time.
7. However, despite the IP and the already existing medical reports, Tan Sri Mokhtar in his press statement of 5 January 1999 appears to accept the views of Dr Rahman on the so-called “inconsistencies” in the other medical reports by the doctors who actually physically examined me.
8. Tan Sri Mokhtar’s press statement also states that the investigation which had been carried out did not identify the person or persons responsible for my injuries. This is inconsistent with the IP which had already concluded by October 1998 that it was Rahim Noor who assaulted me. Tan Sri Mokhtar and his team therefore had wilfully misled the public. As the police investigation done by Mat Zain had apparently not led to any conclusion, there was a public outcry and demand for a Royal Commission which was then set up. Tan Sri Mokhtar also made a false statement that the IP was submitted to him on 19.11.98. I believe that Tan Sri Gani Patail had full knowledge of the false contents of this press statement.
9. I believe Tan Sri Musa Hassan and Tan Sri Gani Patail were present in Bukit Aman on 20 September 1998 and knew about the assault by Tan Sri Rahim Noor on me. Tan Sri Musa and Tan Sri Gani further concealed the fact of the assault on me from the public until my black eye and injuries were revealed in court.
10. I believe both Tan Sri Musa and Tan Sri Gani Patail were actively involved in the procuring of the second undated report by Dr Rahman which makes false and incredible conclusions such as “the pattern and nature of the injuries are not consistent with a direct blow”, “accidental nature of the injuries could not be ruled out” and “self-inflicted nature of the injury should be considered”. They gave the instructions to Dr Rahman to proceed to write this second report and were acting under the direction and/or jointly with Tan Sri Mokhtar Abdullah.
11. These facts show that Tan Sri Musa Hassan, Tan Sri Gani Patail and SAC II Datuk Mat Zain bin Ibrahim (who, according to Dr Rahman’s second report, accompanied him to the cell in Bukit Aman where I was detained and participated in the so-called reconstruction of the scene) conspired with Dr Rahman to procure the production of this second report. This was done so that my police report of 27.9.98 in respect of the assault would be regarded as a false police report for which I could be charged, or at the very least, to damage my credibility, so as to affect my defence in the other criminal cases where I was charged for so-called “corruption” and sodomy to facilitate a conviction.
12. I wish to point out that Tan Sri Gani Patail was the senior prosecutor assisting Tan Sri Mokhtar in the prosecution against me. Tan Sri Musa Hassan was the Investigating Officer for my prosecution. I also believe, that in an unprecedented manner, an operation room specially for my prosecution was set up at Bukit Aman’s compound where all these individuals would meet regularly.
13. This is not the first time that allegations of fabricating evidence had surfaced in connection with Tan Sri Gani Patail. I am informed that in the Federal Court decision Zainur bin Zakaria v Public Prosecutor  3 MLJ, Steve Shim CJ in delivering his judgment pointed out that “… was he not justified, on a prima facie basis, in complaining that Tan Sri Gani Patail’s conduct at the meeting on 2.10.1998 was an attempt to get Nalla to fabricate evidence in order to perfect charges against him for other alleged sexual offences?” The references to “he” and “him” in that sentence are references to myself.
14. In relation to the above, I refer to the following documents which will be of assistance to the police:
1. The press statement by Tan Sri Mokhtar issued on 5.1.99.
2. The notes of proceedings in the report of the Royal Commission of the evidence of Dr Rahman
3. The second undated report produced by Dr Rahman exhibited in the Royal Commission report.
15. I call for a fresh investigation into the fabrication of evidence in this case which I am advised is an offence contrary to section 192 of the Penal Code punishable up to 7 years imprisonment. I ask that all the persons who are implicated in the procuring of this second report by Dr Rahman i.e. Tan Sri Gani Patail, Tan Sri Musa Hassan, Dr Rahman and Datuk Mat Zain bin Ibrahim be investigated thoroughly so that the truth is known and the offending individuals punished.
ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM
1st July 2008
Taken from the Malaysian Insider here.
I didn’t expect the report to be on this issue though. Again, a surprise. And as I’ve said, Anwar is gaining momentum. Even the US has warned against any “politically motivated” action taken against Anwar.