Malaysia Ex-DPM Anwar Ibrahim Accused of Sodomy, Again
Yes yes yes, Anwar Ibrahim of PKR, Pakatan Rakyat is accused of sodomy again. This time the reported was filed by Saiful Bahari, one of Anwar’s aides.
“Yes, we have received a police report from an aide of Anwar Ibrahim that he was sodomised. But no, we will not arrest Anwar at the moment,” said deputy police chief Ismail Omar.
No matter how bad the current relationship between UMNO and Dr Mahathir is, seems like the guys there definitely have picked up some tricks from their former party leader.
Some people in forums actually related this case to the famous Hong Kong movie, 无间道, or the Hollywood version, The Departed. This is interesting. So who is 陈永仁? Who is 刘建明?
OK, relax a bit, have some fun with this spoof of 无间道, have some fun with GY仁, 肚烂明.
Malaysia’s Anwar to be investigated on sex charges: police
Aide alleges sodomy: Report lodged
拥总警长总检查长罪证遭报复 安华斥有心人捏造鸡奸案指控
July 1st, 2008 at 3:36 am
Hye guys,
I quoted this from renovatio blogged by stephendoss concrning about Anwar sodomise cases issued previously..checked it out..
“FOR THE BENEFIT OF READERS, I HAVE EXTRACTED FROM THE PAST THE JUDGMENT BY THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA, ANWAR’S APPEAL AGAINST HIS CONVICTION ON SODOMY. THE FOLLOWING IS A MAJORITY DECISION REACHED BY THE JUDGES SITTING IN THE FEDERAL COURT ON THE ANWAR IBRAHIM APPEAL AGAINST HIS CONVICTION ON SODOMY.
PLEASE NOTE AND READ CAREFULLY THE VERDICT, THAT ALTHOUGH THE JUDGES HAD NO DOUBT IN THEIR MINDS THAT THE ACT OF SODOMY BY ANWAR IBRAHIM HAD TAKEN PLACE, BUT TO RELY SOLELY ON AZIZAN’S EVIDENCE WOULD BE UNSAFE FOR THE PURPOSES OF UPHOLDING THE JUDGEMENT.
SO DID THE ACT OF SODOMY TAKE PLACE ? YES ACCORDING TO THE JUDGES. BUT DUE TO A TECHNICALITY THEY HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO DISMISS THE CASE.
DALAM MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA
(BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN)
RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: 05-6-2003 (W)
ANTARA
DATO’ SERI ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM … PERAYU
DAN
PENDAKWA RAYA … RESPONDEN
RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. 05-7-2003 (W)
SUKMA DARMAWAN SASMITAAT MADJA … PERAYU
DAN
PENDAKWA RAYA … RESPONDEN
CORAM:
ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD F.C.J.
RAHMAH HUSSAIN F.C.J.
TENGKU BAHARUDIN SHAH TENGKU MAHMUD J.C.A.
MAJORITY JUDGMENT OF
ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD F.C.J.
AND TENGKU BAHARUDIN SHAH TENGKU MAHMUD J.C.A.
In this judgment, Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim will be referred to as “the first appellant” and Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja will be referred to as “the second appellant”.
The first appellant was charged with an offence punishable under section 377B of the Penal Code.
The second appellant was charged with two offences. The first charge is for abetting the first appellant in the commission of the offence with which the first appellant was charged. The second charge is similar to the charge against the first appellant i.e. under section 377B of the Penal Code.
Both the appellants were tried jointly. The first appellant was convicted and sentenced to nine years imprisonment commencing from the expiry of the sentence he was then serving in the first trial. High Court Kuala Lumpur Criminal Trial No. 45-48-1998 (1999)2 M.L.J. 1 (H.C), (2002)2 M.L.J. 486 (C.A.) and (2002) 3 M.L.J. 193 (F.C.)). The second appellant was convicted on both charges and sentenced to six years imprisonment and two strokes for each charge with the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently. For the judgment of the High Court in the present case, see (2001) 3 M.L.J. 193.
They appealed to the Court of Appeal. Their appeals were dismissed – see (2004) 1 M.L.J. 177.
They appealed to this court and this is the majority judgment of this court.
Section 87(3) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (“CJA 1964”) provides that a criminal appeal to this court “may lie on a question of fact or a question of law or on a question of mixed fact and law.” The position is the same as in the case of the Court of Appeal hearing an appeal from a trial in the High Court as in this case – see section 50(3) CJA 1964.
To summarise our judgment, even though reading the appeal record, we find evidence to confirm that the appellants were involved in homosexual activities and we are more inclined to believe that the alleged incident at Tivoli Villa did happen, sometime, this court, as a court of law, may only convict the appellants if the prosecution has successfully proved the alleged offences as stated in the charges, beyond reasonable doubt, on admissible evidence and in accordance with established principles of law. We may be convinced in our minds of the guilt or innocence of the appellants but our decision must only be based on the evidence adduced and nothing else.”