The Court of Appeal judgment on evidence tampering in Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim's Sodomy II trial has been described by PKR vice-president N Surendran as going "against all common sense".
"Crucially, although the investigating officer Supt Jude Pereira had cut open the sample bag P27, the judges say this does not 'amount to tampering of the exhibits'.
"This conclusion goes against all legal principles governing the chain of evidence, and against all common sense," Surendran said in a statement yesterday.
Anwar was sentenced to five years in jail by the Court of Appeal on March 7 for sodomising his former aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.
Sample bag P27 contained crucial samples taken from Mohd Saiful's anus, including sperm from the alleged offender.
Furthermore, Surendran (right) said, despite the questionable circumstances, the judges in the case had insisted there was "nothing improbable" about Saiful's evidence.
"How did these three judges reach such a conclusion when it is undisputed that Saiful met with Anwar's political enemy, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, just two days before the alleged incident?
"Why did he also meet with top police officer SAC II Mohd Rodwan Mohd Yusof, who was involved in the first sodomy case?" asked Surendran who is also Padang Serai MP.
The case was heard by justice Balia Yusof Wahi, who headed the three-member bench, and justices Aziah Ali and Mohd Zawawi Salleh.
'Judges deviated from points of law'
Surendran said the judges had also deviated from points of law by addressing public criticism in their judgment that the case was handled too hastily.
"It is highly inappropriate for the judges to respond to criticism of their conduct in such a manner.
"The judgment in a criminal case must deal with the facts and law of the case, and not extraneous matters. Otherwise it raises questions about the judges' impartiality and objectivity," he said.
Also, said Surendran who is a lawyer by training, the judges broke from legal convention by criticising Anwar's unsworn statement from the dock, which is a legitimate option for criminal cases.
"(Nelson) Mandela did so when he was on trial for his life in the 1963 Rivonia case. Anwar did so in the Fitnah (defamation) II trial, and thus put on trial the unjust legal and political system that had brought him to the dock.
"The Court of Appeal judgment on Sodomy II departed from all legal precedents by criticising Anwar for giving a statement from the dock," he said.
These anomalies, Surendran said, only served to reinforce the notion that Anwar was being victimised by his political opponents.
"This judgment purports to convict Anwar, but in fact it strengthens the general public conviction that Anwar Ibrahim is a victim of political persecution and that there has been a grave miscarriage of justice," he said.
"Crucially, although the investigating officer Supt Jude Pereira had cut open the sample bag P27, the judges say this does not 'amount to tampering of the exhibits'.
"This conclusion goes against all legal principles governing the chain of evidence, and against all common sense," Surendran said in a statement yesterday.
Anwar was sentenced to five years in jail by the Court of Appeal on March 7 for sodomising his former aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.
Sample bag P27 contained crucial samples taken from Mohd Saiful's anus, including sperm from the alleged offender.Furthermore, Surendran (right) said, despite the questionable circumstances, the judges in the case had insisted there was "nothing improbable" about Saiful's evidence.
"How did these three judges reach such a conclusion when it is undisputed that Saiful met with Anwar's political enemy, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, just two days before the alleged incident?
"Why did he also meet with top police officer SAC II Mohd Rodwan Mohd Yusof, who was involved in the first sodomy case?" asked Surendran who is also Padang Serai MP.
The case was heard by justice Balia Yusof Wahi, who headed the three-member bench, and justices Aziah Ali and Mohd Zawawi Salleh.
'Judges deviated from points of law'
Surendran said the judges had also deviated from points of law by addressing public criticism in their judgment that the case was handled too hastily.
"It is highly inappropriate for the judges to respond to criticism of their conduct in such a manner.
"The judgment in a criminal case must deal with the facts and law of the case, and not extraneous matters. Otherwise it raises questions about the judges' impartiality and objectivity," he said.
Also, said Surendran who is a lawyer by training, the judges broke from legal convention by criticising Anwar's unsworn statement from the dock, which is a legitimate option for criminal cases.
"(Nelson) Mandela did so when he was on trial for his life in the 1963 Rivonia case. Anwar did so in the Fitnah (defamation) II trial, and thus put on trial the unjust legal and political system that had brought him to the dock.
"The Court of Appeal judgment on Sodomy II departed from all legal precedents by criticising Anwar for giving a statement from the dock," he said.
These anomalies, Surendran said, only served to reinforce the notion that Anwar was being victimised by his political opponents.
"This judgment purports to convict Anwar, but in fact it strengthens the general public conviction that Anwar Ibrahim is a victim of political persecution and that there has been a grave miscarriage of justice," he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.