Najib must answer 13 questions about statement on Anwar verdict, says Kit Siang

Just minutes after opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy conviction was upheld on Tuesday, the Prime Minister's Office issued a statement declaring the independence of the judiciary. – The Malaysian Insider pic, February 12, 2015.

The statement issued by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) just minutes after the Federal Court found opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim guilty of sodomy on Tuesday is disrespectful and a blatant tampering of the due legal and judicial process, DAP said.

Its veteran parliamentary leader, Lim Kit Siang, said the "lightning quick" statement had gravely sullied the credibility, independence and professionalism of Malaysian judiciary.

The statement that defended the Federal Court's decision to uphold Anwar's sodomy conviction and five-year jail sentence, he said, came before the completion of the Federal Court judicial process.

Lim said he rejected the explanation yesterday by a government spokesperson that the statement was prepared in advance.

"Who is the Najib government bluffing?" the Gelang Patah MP said in a statement today.

Lim then posed 13 questions to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to salvage the judiciary's credibility, independence and professionalism.

The questions are:

1. Can the government explain how the PMO was able to issue a statement within minutes of the Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria’s announcement and even before the sentencing, stating that “exhaustive and comprehensive due process… is now complete” when in fact it had not?

2. Does the PMO have the world's greatest genius in its employ, who is also the world's fastest speed reader, who is able to digest complicated technical and legal jargon and arguments in the judgment to come out with a statement in only a few minutes, when the Chief Justice took two hours to read the judgment?

3. The PMO statement stated: “In this case, exhaustive and comprehensive due process has been followed over many years. That process is now complete, and we call on all parties involved to respect the legal process and judgment.” This remark is in fact the best proof of the disrespect and blatant tampering with the due legal and judicial process. Why did the PM countenance it?

4. Does the PMO really expect the people to believe that it had prepared a statement in advance for either outcome? Is the PMO prepared to release immediately the “not guilty” drafted statement to prove that it really exists?

5. How many times have the PMO prepared guilty and not guilty statements in advance for criminal cases? Can it state the number of such statements issued by the PMO under the premiership of Najib, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad?

6. Why did the PMO prepare and release a statement in the case when the government claimed that the case was brought by a private individual and had nothing with it? How many such “private individual” cases had there been in the past, where the government had issued statements at the conclusion of the cases? Can the government cite the cases and the PMO statements involved?

7. The PMO statement read: “The judges will have reached their verdict only after considering all the evidence in a balanced and objective manner.” How could the PMO make such a judgmental statement without reading or studying the Federal Court verdict? The statement was issued within minutes of the verdict announcement, even before the completion of the judicial process with the passing of the sentence?

8. The PMO statement further stated: “Malaysia has an independent judiciary, and there have been many rulings against senior government figures.” Who were the “senior government figures” of comparable station to the opposition leader in Parliament, the prime minister, deputy prime minister and minister who were found guilty and jailed in the last 34 years under the Dr Mahathir, Abdullah and Najib administrations?

9. The PMO statement also read: “The police report against Anwar was brought by a private individual – Anwar’s employee and personal assistant – not by the government. As the victim of a serious sexual assault, he had every right to have his case heard in court.” Was this allegation, which does not jive with the prosecution's case against him – consensual sex –made with the approval of the prosecution team led by Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah or Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail? Why is the PMO upping the attack against Anwar by claiming he was guilty of rape against Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan when Anwar was charged under a law dealing with consensual sodomy?

10. Was the PMO statement pre-empting criticism against Anwar’s conviction because of the many “glaring anomalies” that feed suspicion that the case was a political persecution rather than criminal prosecution, such as why Saiful was not charged with consensual sodomy.

11. What is the reason for Najib’s discriminatory handling of cases involving Anwar and the chief protagonists in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder case – Abdul Razak Baginda, Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar? Why was there no PMO statement at the end of the murder trial at the Federal Court, which raised serious doubts on Najib’s credibility and commitment to the causes of justice and moderation?

12. Who will bear full responsibility for the PMO statement – Najib, Gani or Shafee, or two or all three of them? Malaysians are entitled to know whether they were consulted, given their consent or had prior knowledge of the PMO statement.

13. Is it true that the PMO statement is the product of Najib’s “PR (public relations) guru”, former APCO Malaysia boss Paul Stadlen, who is paid several millions of ringgit a year by the government to mastermind the PM’s communications operations, as alleged by the Sarawak Report website?

Yesterday, Putrajaya defended the PMO’s lightning quick response to the judgment by the Federal Court, saying it is normal procedure to prepare statements in advance.

A government spokesperson, in an email to Malaysiakini, reportedly said: "It's clear that the politicians, lawyers, communications teams and journalists involved with this case prepared text for guilty and not guilty verdicts.

"Similarly, the government prepared a statement in advance for either outcome. This is entirely standard professional practice, especially in a case that involves public interest.

"To suggest otherwise is intentionally misleading."

The Sarawak Report also posted an article on its website yesterday, pointing out “flaws” in the PMO statement, such as the “sexual assault” accusation against Anwar and raising questions about Stadlen and whether he had lost his touch.

"Was it because he was seeking to find sympathy from an international audience, which is largely shocked at the primitive decision to imprison someone just for being allegedly gay? If so, surely this experienced PR operator would have realised that too much is known about the case for such false accusations to gain currency?

"Or had Stadlen just being doing too much partying the night before and not really been on the ball?

"Because, to misrepresent the situation in such a vicious and deceptive manner can only bring opprobrium onto his boss, who presumably had hired him (at huge cost) for his supposed understanding of the international press and how to manage it," Sarawak Report said.

- TMI