Umno hawks should be wary of backlash

Kim Quek , CPIAsia

Umno hardliners are agitating for an appeal against Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy acquittal as indicated by the open support of Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin on Jan 12 for the Attorney-General to appeal the case.

Muhyiddin was even reported to have urged the AG to consider the request made by the father to Saiful Bukhari Azlan (the complainant against Anwar) for the sake of public interest.

This move evidently conflicts with the claim by Prime Minister Najib Razak that Anwar’s acquittal underscores the depth of his reform agenda.

In an interview in the Wall Street Journal (13 Jan 2012), Najib is quoted as saying:

“Malaysian leader Najib Razak pointed to the acquittal this week of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim as evidence he’s serious about political reforms, even inviting an election battle that could propel him out of power.”

WSJ journalist James Hookway writes that Najib was “eager to paint himself as leader of Malaysia’s most sweeping reforms since independence”.

“Once the verdict was released, all of the tension surrounding the trial suddenly fell away and people suddenly realized there are more important things than just the Anwar issue, such as economic growth. What is important now is that we move forward.”

Expanding on how the country should move forward, Najib recounted the reform measures that he is in the process of rolling out, such as making the elections more transparent, reducing press censorship, limiting the power to detain without trial, etc.

Taking pride in these changes, Najib said that the reforms could make Malaysia a new partner to the United States in “promoting democratic politics and free trade across Asia and the Islamic Middle East.”

These are words of a leader who has declared an aspiration of winning for his country an honourable place in the international community of democracies.

Conflicting with Najib’s posture

In light of Najib’s posturing on the Anwar issue, the call by his deputy Muhyiddin for an appeal against the sodomy acquittal seems oddly out of place, especially when accolades are still pouring in.

Malaysia’s judicial decision has been affirmed by the world as the right step to end a trial universally condemned as a blatant travesty of justice and outright political persecution.

In case Muhyiddin and his fellow hardliners are unaware, the facts presented by the prosecution in the Anwar trial are so absurdly weak and apparently fraudulent that it would have been an absolute disgrace to the country if high court judge Mohamed Zabidin Mohd Diah were to decide otherwise, i.e. to find Anwar guilty.

It should have been obvious to all those who have followed the trial that when the only evidence – the DNA – which the prosecution had counted on to support its case (apart from the complainant’s own words) was demolished by the Australian DNA expert, the entire case virtually collapsed.

Saga of Anwar’s super sperm

Dr Brian McDonald, a reputable consultant molecular geneticist, rightly pointed out that no sperm after ejaculation could have survived for DNA identification after staying 56 hours in the rectum.

Thereafter, it stayed another 48 hours in the cupboard of the police investigating officer at tropical room temperature, prior to reaching the chemist’s laboratory.

The fact that these samples could still be found in “pristine” condition – as described by Dr McDonald based on Malaysian government chemist Dr Seah Lay Hong’s DNA test report – pointed irresistibly to the conjecture that these were not the original swabs but fresh substitutes presented to the lab.

In case there is any doubt of Dr McDonald’s credibility, he had submitted to the court a 5-page CV listing the books, papers and articles that he has written on the subject of DNA. He is also a member of the Australian Biomedical Society, head geneticist officer in New South Wales, member of the Australian Forensic Science Society and served as committee member of the Human Genetics Society.

It is significant that the prosecution has failed to successfully rebut Dr McDonald’s evidence. Neither was Dr Seah recalled by solicitor-general II Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden when the final prosecution rebuttal witnesses gave evidence for the prosecution.

Lead prosecutor Yusof had said at the outset of the prosecution on 3 Feb 2010 that his case was based on the complainant Saiful’s direct evidence and the DNA found in his rectum.

These would prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Anwar was guilty, despite all the doctors who had physically examined Saiful certifying that they could not find any evidence of penetration.

Once the DNA evidence was dismantled, the case merely hinged on Saiful’s words.

How much credibility should be accorded to Saiful’s testimony? The answer is found in the prosecution’s decision to charge Anwar for consensual sodomy, instead of forced sodomy as emphatically insisted by Saiful. The adjustment in the charge reflected the prosecution’s disagreement with the complainant’s initial claim.

If the prosecutor could not believe in what Saiful said, why should the court believe him?

APPEAL IS A DEAD END

Now the crucial question: can the uncorroborated evidence of prosecution’s star witness constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt? Remember that the penalty upon a guilty verdict may condemn the accused to up to 20 years in jail.

Umno hardliners who refuse to let go of the judicial process to annihilate Anwar politically must first ponder on this question: In the event of an appeal, will the courts, as compliant as most of the judges are to the wishes of the political masters, be willing stoop so low as to proceed with another round?

Even if they do, would that not make Malaysia the laughing stock of the world, causing a crisis of confidence in Malaysia’s rule of law and thus inflicting grievous economic injury to the country?

Finally, are these Umno extremists very sure that such heinous injustice to Malaysia’s favourite son might not cause a massive backlash that may cast Umno to political oblivion?