Guilty? Not guilty.
The High Court delivered its not guilty verdict in the second sodomy trial of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim on Monday,
January 9. A conviction would have effectively barred him from the general election expected this year.
The following is a chronology of the major events in the trial:
June 29, 2008: Saiful Bukhary Azlan, a 23-year-old male aide to Anwar, lodges a police report saying that his employer sodomised him. Anwar responds with a denial and later a lawsuit of his own.
July 16, 2008: Police arrest Anwar, detain him overnight, and release him on bail of 10,000 ringgit (3,150 dollars) the next day.
August 7, 2008: Anwar pleads not guilty to the charge of 'carnal intercourse against the order of nature' with his former aide.
August 26, 2008: Anwar is re-elected to Parliament and takes formal leadership of the opposition coalition.
February 3, 2010: After several lengthy delays, the case opens in the High Court. Anwar maintains the charges are a political manoeuvre against his increasingly popular opposition alliance.
August 2, 2010: The defence moves to have the charges dropped amid rumours of a sexual relationship between Saiful and a female deputy prosecutor. The woman is removed from the prosecution team.
December 12, 2010: Leaked diplomatic cables quote Australian and Singapore intelligence agencies as saying Anwar was probably set up.
March 23, 2011: The court overturns an earlier decision to allow the use of DNA samples obtained from Anwar's personal effects without consent while he was in prison, and which the prosecution said matched semen found on the alleged victim.
March 24, 2011: The prosecution presents its closing arguments.
April, 2011: A video is released featuring a man resembling Anwar having sex with a woman who appears to be a prostitute. Anwar is questioned by police but dismisses the tape as another smear.
May 16, 2011: The court rules that Saiful is a credible prosecution witness, and not discredited by the alleged affair with a member of his legal team. Anwar is ordered to enter his defence.
June 6, 2011: The court dismisses for the third time Anwar's request to have the judge disqualified for biased handling of the case.
August 22, 2011: Anwar gives his testimony in court, and reiterates his not-guilty plea, calling the allegation a 'blatant and vicious lie.'
October 6, 2011: The High Court rules that Prime Minister Najib Razak cannot be called as a witness. The defence had asked for Najib to take the stand, accusing him of being behind the charges. Defence lawyers had interviewed Najib and his wife in August.
January 9, 2012: Not guilty verdict by the High Court.
1 comment:
I would say that this is a "set up" by the prosecution. An act of prosecution will not lead to "desperate act". Why? Because it has nothing to do with politics and through the statutory interpretation, I would say that the court has lack of evidence against the accuse. And therefore the acquittal will still be effective until new evidences were to be found.
I don't think the Malaysia fully understand about the Legal system set. There is another reliable evidence to reason about how the prosecution cannot appeal against the acquittal. As we people know that the "Jury" system was abolished long time ago and as of the Attorney Generals' reference: Criminal Justice Act 1972 are protecting prosecutions from the defense' judicial system, therefore, this is another evidence to prove that it is not possible for the prosecution to appeal again since there is no judicial review in Malaysia. Usually Defense side is about juries' opinion; nevertheless, Malaysia and Singapore are sole Prosecution against defenses. According to the Criminal Justice Act 1995, it is proven that appeal against the prosecution is strictly reasonable under criminal division of the court of appeal if the defense felt that the sentence or the compelling sentence is very "Unsafe"! But I didn't say that the prosecutions were wrong towards their appeal. We Malaysians have had lack of Human Rights Act 1998 category, prosecutions could appeal against the acquittal if new evidence can be found. Besides, by ordering a new trial may be possibly or I should say "Extremely Expensive" and Time consuming. Oh hell, please stop all these nonsense and carry on to the future, not to look back to the past and tell lies about sodomy trials again?! It's already a history !!! I pay no interest and supports to neither of the voting parties in Malaysia. I only persuade justice and swear to the fairness of Law and order. Malaysia needs a better future and her people needs a proper law to guide them. So be logic and grow up instead of corrupting the community and wasting tax payers' money !!!
Post a Comment