Not one shred of evidence, says Anwar’s lawyer

The defence team closes its case after arguing that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the opposition leader had committed the offence.

KUALA LUMPUR: The defence team in the Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II trial today rested its case, after contending that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Anwar had committed the offence.

In its closing submissions at the High Court, Anwar’s defence lawyers argued that the complainant, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, was not a credible witness; that the DNA evidence was flawed; and that the evidence adduced did not even prove that Anwar had committed the act or even had the intention of committing it.

“In the circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that Anwar ought to be acquitted and discharged,” said defence counsel, Ramkarpal Singh, who was the last to make his submission after Sankara Nair and Karpal Singh.

During Sankara’s submission, he said that the prosecution had not adduced one shred of evidence to prove “mens rea” (intention), which is a vital evidence in proving an act of sodomy.

“They have not provided any independent and/or corroborative evidence that it was Anwar who planned the whole alleged episode and procured Saiful’s specific attendance at Desa Damansara condo on June 26, 2008.”

Sankara said it was the duty of the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, but it had not conclusively, or otherwise, proved that an act of penetration took place.

“Saiful was never in Unit 1511 or seen entering the unit. All the prosecution had is a bad CCTV recording which is not even in full real-time, allegedly indicating that Saiful was in the vicinity of Desa Damasara condo; this is grossly inadequate and has no evidential value,” said Sankara.

He added that the evidence of the KY gel, which seemed to be an afterthought by the prosecution, cannot be admissible evidence as it was never proven by lab tests that the contents were indeed gell.

“The prosecution has not adduced one iota of evidence to show penetration, a crucial ingredient… under the Penal Code,” said Sankara.

“The defence counsel has punctured holes in this case and has given birth to various unanswerable questions,” he said.

‘Devious conspiracy’

Sankara also stated that it is the defence’s position that the prosecution was part of a “devious conspiracy by the powers-that-be to destroy the political career of Anwar” and prevent him from ever becoming prime minister.

“It is as clear as daylight that the finger-prints of (premier) Najib Tun Razak are all over this sordid plot notwithstanding the desperate attempts by various quarters to smudge them.”

Sankara also said that Saiful’s meeting with Najib gave rise to a suspicion of some foul play, at the very least, and, at worst, of “some nefarious machination at work”.

He added that Najib’s contradictory answers compounded the matter.

“This begs the questions: Why did Najib not come clean the first time he was asked about this? What was there to hide? Why did he have to resort to lies?”

Earlier, Ramkarpal gave a lengthy summary of the prosecution’s DNA evidence, which he said raised more questions than answers.

Based on the defence’s DNA and forensic witnesses’ testimony, which he said the prosecution has failed to rebut, Ramkarpal raised some questions: “How can the court conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the DNA from male Y came from sperm cells? The evidence suggests that DNA was not retrieved from the anus of the victim but elsewhere.”

He also said that local DNA experts had failed to adhere to their own guidelines, adding that the court should not ignore the very real possibility that it (unidentified DNA profile) could have belonged to someone who handled the items.

“If the rectal samples were indeed taken from the anus of Saiful, why were they in pristine condition? No DNA would be in such condition if it has been in an anus for 56 hours,” said Ramkarpal.

The prosecution will make its final submissions tomorrow before the case is closed and a date for verdict is fixed.