Gopal Sri Ram - Saya tak percaya karpet ‘boleh terbang’...

Karpet di mana Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim didakwa meliwat bekas pembantunya, digunakan peguam bela dalam kenyataan penutupnya, bagi menyerlahkan lebih banyak jurang dalam hujah pihak pendakwaan dalam kes rayuan Anwar terhadap sabitan liwatnya di Mahkamah Persekutuan hari ini.

Peguam utama Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram mula menggulung kenyataan penutup pembelaan dengan menggunakan karpet itu bagi menunjukkan pengadu, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, bukan seorang saksi yang boleh dipercayai.

Karpet itu disita pihak polis dari satu unit kondominium - nombor 11-5-2 - bukan di tempat di mana kejadian jenayah itu didakwa berlaku. Karpet itu juga tidak menghasilkan sebarang keterangan forensik membuktikan jenayah yang dikatakan.

Dakwaan Saiful terhadap Anwar ialah ketua pembangkang itu meliwatnya di sebuah unit - nombor 11-5-1 - di sebuah kondominium di Bukit Damansara pada 26 Jun, 2008.

Sri Ram berkata karpet itu mungkin dipindahkan dari satu unit ke unit yang lain, tetapi tidak ada bukti menunjukkan perkara ini. Kedua-dua unit juga tidak bersambung dari dalam.

Bagi membuktikan kejadian liwat yang dituduh itu benar berlaku, Sri Ram berkata, karpet itu mesti dijumpai dalam unit kondominium yang betul atau sekurang-kurangnya terdapat bukti ia dipindahkan.

Beliau memberitahu panel lima hakim mahkamah tertinggi itu yang karpet itu mungkin digerakkan oleh "lembu terbang," dan menambah, "Saya tidak percaya pada lembu terbang".

Sri Ram berkata tanpa karpet itu, pihak pendakwaan tidak mempunyai kes terhadap Anwar kerana ia penting dalam dakwaan yang dibuat Saiful.

Bekas hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan itu berkata, Saiful menambah "garam dan lada" kepada dakwaannya - yang akhirnya menimbulkan pertentangan dengan dirinya sendiri - dengan mengatakan pintu unit itu terkunci dari dalam semasa kejadian liwat didakwa berlaku.

Namun, beliau juga memberi keterangan mengatakan mereka menikmati teh dan karipap selepas kejadian yang dikatakan itu berlaku.

Sri Ram mempersoalkan bagaimana makanan dan minuman dibawa ke unit itu jika pintunya terkunci dari dalam.

Beliau juga menyangkal dakwaan pihak pendakwa yang mengatakan Anwar menggunakan teknik "Machiavelli" mengawal Saiful dan Saiful menganggap Anwar idolanya.

Hakikatnya, Sri Ram berhujah, Saiful "membenci" Anwar, berdasarkan bukti daripada posting beliau di akaun media sosial Friendster.

Saiful menulis posting menunjukkan beliau seorang yang pro-Barisan Nasional, Sri Ram memberitahu mahkamah.

Rakan Saiful, bernama Najwan, juga dipanggil memberi keterangan dalam perbicaraan dan dia berkata Saiful tidak boleh dipercayai.

"Najwan malah menghantar emel kepada Anwar, memberi amaran tentang Saiful," kata Sri Ram.

Pihak pendakwaan bagaimanapun menolak bukti ini, dan berkata Najwan "cemburukan" Saiful kerana dia bekerja dengan pemimpin pembangkang itu.

Sri Ram menggesa mahkamah mengambil keterangan Najwan secara serius, kerana ia mendedahkan kepalsuan dakwaan pihak pendakwa yang Anwar dan Saiful ada "hubungan".

Berhubung dakwaan mengenai sut mahal, faedah dan elaun yang diberikan kepada Saiful menjadi bukti hubungan mereka, Sri Ram berkata semasa perbicaraan Saiful membawa ke mahkamah seluar yang dikatakannya berjenama Brioni, tetapi ia tidak mempunyai label.

Jaket bagi sut itu juga tidak pernah ditunjukkan.

"Bukti yang dia diberi sut mahal tidak lagi boleh dipakai," kata Sri Ram, sambil menambah semua dakwaan mengenai faedah dan elaun hanya datang daripada Saiful, yang kredibilitinya menjadi persoalan.

Ketua peguam itu juga berhujah, Saiful bukanlah seorang yang baik seperti yang cuba ditonjolkannya dan merujuk mahkamah kepada satu tuduhan yang dia didakwa mempunyai hubungan dengan seorang pendakwa raya wanita semasa perbicaraan.

"Dia (Saiful) menggodanya bagi mendapatkan maklumat sulit," kata Sri Ram.

Menyanggah hujah lain dibangkitkan pihak pendakwa, Sri Ram menimbulkan keraguan berhubung pelincir yang didakwa digunakan semasa interaksi seksual itu, yang dinamakan sebagai bukti kejadian liwat itu berlaku.

Sri Ram berkata pegawai penyiasat Supt Jude Pereira pada mulanya menolak gel yang diberikan kepadanya sebagai bukti oleh Saiful, tetapi mengambilnya pada hari berikutnya bagi tujuan penyiasatan.

"Tambahan kepada fakta ini ialah tiada kesan jeli itu ditemui di atas karpet (di mana kejadian liwat didakwa berlaku)," katanya.

Mengenai kurangnya saksi alibi dipanggil, Sri Ram berkata, tiada adverse inference (kesimpulan negatif) sepatutnya dibuat terhadap Anwar kerana 13 saksi alibi yang pada awalnya dinamakan, diganggu pihak polis.

"Kami tidak mampu bawa kes ini ke depan kerana saksi kami diganggu," katanya, sambil menambah, pihak pendakwa sepatutnya boleh mengemukakan keterangan video menunjukkan sesi soal siasat polis bagi membuktikan tidak ada gangguan, tetapi mereka gagal berbuat demikian.

Sri Ram berkata, Anwar dalam satu kenyataan tidak bersumpah beliau dari kandang tertuduh semasa perbicaraan, menafikan melakukan jenayah itu.

Beliau mengingatkan mahkamah yang undang-undang Malaysia mengiktiraf hak tertuduh membuat kenyataan dari kandang, dan tidak sepatutnya ada sebarang adverse inference di sini.

Hujah terakhir Sri Ram petang ini mempertahankan doktor pertama yang memeriksa Saiful selepas kejadian liwat yang dikatakan itu, Dr Mohd Osman Abdul Hamid, yang mendapati tidak ada bukti penetrasi zakar.

Dr Osman sebaliknya mendapati ada objek plastik yang dimasukkan ke dalam dubur Saiful, berdasarkan pengakuan Saiful sendiri semasa pemeriksaan perubatan.

Doktor itu tiada motif untuk memalsukan maklumat tersebut dalam laporan bertulisnya mengenai pemeriksaan itu, Sri Ram berkata, kerana dia tidak lagi berada di Malaysia setelah kembali ke Myanmar, negara asalnya.

Pihak pembelaan masih belum selesai membuat jawapan penutup dan Sri Ram akan menyambung hujahnya esok apabila perbicaraan disambung semula jam 3 petang. 

Esok hari kelapan perbicaraan ini, membuatkannya yang terpanjang bagi sesuatu rayuan kes jenayah didengar di peringkat Mahkamah Persekutuan di Malaysia. - tmi

Isteri kartunis Zunar ditahan jual buku sindir institusi kehakiman...

Isteri kepada kartunis kontroversi, Zulkifli Anwar Ulhaque atau dikenali sebagai Zunar ditahan di perkarangan Istana Kehakiman di Putrajaya, hari ini, dipercayai kerana menjual buku yang mengandungi sindiran kepada institusi kehakiman dan pemimpin negara.

Turut ditahan seorang lagi wanita bersama seorang lelaki yang dipercayai membantunya mempamer dan menjual buku tersebut sejak perbicaraan kes liwat membabitkan ketua pembangkang Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim berlangsung pada Selasa lepas.

Mereka ditahan anggota polis berpakaian preman kira-kira 6.50 petang dengan buku, kad serta komik yang dijual turut dirampas.

Mereka kemudiannya dibawa dengan sebuah van polis ke Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah Putrajaya untuk siasatan lanjut.

Ketua Polis Daerah Putrajaya ACP Abdul Razak Abdul Majid ketika dihubungi mengesahkan penahanan ketiga-tiga individu berkenaan yang seorang daripadanya adalah isteri kepada kartunis Zunar.

"Dua daripada mereka berusia 41 tahun, manakala seorang lagi wanita berumur 29 tahun dan semuanya ditahan mengikut Seksyen 2 (3) Akta Penerbitan dan Mesin Cetak 1984," katanya.

Sebelum ini Kementerian Dalam Negeri pernah mengenakan Perintah Larangan terhadap sebuah buku dan dua komik sindiran politik tulisan Zunar, mengikut akta sama. –  Bernama

Defence unfurls 'carpet' over prosecution's case...

The Federal Court was treated to a colourful presentation by opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s lead defence counsel, Gopal Sri Ram.

From “flying carpets” to “briyani” and “fairies”, the former Federal Court judge attempted to dismantle the prosecution’s case.

Focusing on the carpet on which the complainant claimed that the sodomy took place, Gopal said the police had seized a China silk carpet from unit 11-5-2 at the Damansara Desa condominium.

He then pointed out that the police also seized a strand of hair from another unit, 11-5-1.

Noting that the prosecutor claimed that the carpet was moved, Gopal quipped, "But I do not believe in flying carpets."

"There is no evidence that the carpet was moved,” he added.

Based on this point alone, the defence counsel argued that the sodomy incident did not take place as alleged by Anwar’s former aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

This, Gopal (left) argued, demolished the prosecution's case.

"Without the carpet, the prosecution cannot prove (its case)," he told the court.

On the expensive suit which the appellant had allegedly purchased for Saiful, Gopal questioned lead prosecutor Muhammad Shafee Abdullah if it was a “Brioni or brownie” suit, arguing that if the latter’s contention was to be believed, then “fairies also exist”.

This prompted the government-appointed prosecutor to stand up and reply that his team had listened to the transcript again.

Shafee said that it was a “Brioni” suit “and it sounded like Briyani".

"Yes," Gopal quipped in response, "But the Brioni suit costs more than Briyani".

He also pointed out that even Saiful's underwear had a brand label, but not the pants which was touted to be a “Brioni”.

Gopal also added his tale was not only about the 'Arabian Nights' or flying carpets.

Questioning Saiful’s credibility, Gopal argued that the complainant was “no ordinary boy”, stating that he had seduced a member of the prosecution team.

“My tale is real, on the alleged affair Saiful (left) had with DPP Farah Azlina Abdul Latif who was allegedly seduced to gather information.”

Farah was removed from the prosecution team mid-way in the prosecution's case.

'Coffee and curry puffs'

Contrary to the claim that the complainant had “idolised” Anwar, the defence lawyer said Saiful detested the opposition leader.

Citing the testimony by Najwan Halimi, another former aide of Anwar, Gopal said the complainant often posted photos of himself with political leaders with the BN emblem.

Saiful, he added, had also described Anwar as a “pemimpin munafik” (hypocrite leader) in the posts.

As for the “coffee and curry puffs”, Gopal questioned how these items were delivered when Saiful had testified that the door was locked.

Prior to Gopal, the children of the late Karpal Singh, who was Anwar’s former lead consel, took turns to rebut the prosecution.

Among others, Ram Karpal, Gobind Singh Deo and Sangeet Deo (right) focussed on the DNA evidence, arguing that the “Male Y” was not Anwar.

The lawyers also questioned the credibility of investigating officer Supt Jude B Pereira as well as the qualification of government chemist Seah Lay Hong.

It was also put forth to the court that the DNA evidence suggested that Saiful was sodomised by two people.

Gobind argued that there were attempts to connect the specimens from 'Male Y' to Anwar.

The High Court, he said, held that since Anwar was the sole occupant of the cell, Male Y must be him.

However, he added that somebody else could have had access to those items, which were a toothbrush, towel and mineral water bottle.

"It is a finding based on sole occupancy, but if there is a person with direct access to the cell, then how?" he asked.

Earlier, Sangeet suggested that the person who possessed the “allele 18", the other DNA found on Saiful, could be the perpetrator.

She concluded that the trial judge was right in initially not admitting the three items retrieved from the cell.

"Without these items there is no link to Anwar and this leads to the question who is Male Y," she said.

Prior to this, Ram Karpal argued that there is a real possibility the DNA samples had been tampered with and those supposedly retrieved from the three items could be different samples.

He also questioned the investigating officer’s action in opening the plastic bag containing the samples.

Describing this case as one “riddled with doubt”, Ramkarpal also said that it was not a coincidence that Saiful met Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.

He said Saiful met Najib at his office and had  ‎asked for a recommendation to be a pilot. “Saiful was certainly a special boy as he met Najib not only at his office but also at his house,” remarked Gopal.

The lawyer also drew laughter from those present with his “dinosaur” remark.

He said the defence did not dispute that DNA could be retained for thousands of years as with dinosaurs, which was well documented.

"But what is in question is that this sample is not found in the dinosaur’s anus," he added. - mk

Shafee to cite Anwar for contempt...

Government-appointed prosecutor Muhammad Shafee Abdullah said he had been told to pursue citing opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim for contempt, after the Sodomy II appeal verdict.

Shafee said ‎he had received instructions from Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail to do this, he informed the five-member bench led by Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria, as proceedings started today.

He cited two articles, one by Malaysiakini and the other by The Malay Mail Online on this where Anwar had said that if Shafee retired, then the court would not convict him.

The senior lawyer cited the last two paragraphs of the Malaysiakini report titled ‘Go back to law school’.

However, he did not read out The Malay Mail Online report.

Shafee claimed that Anwar had previously scandalised the High Court in Kuala Lumpur with what he said and now, he was scandalising the Federal Court by saying this.

Following this, he applied for the court to cite Anwar for contempt.

This resulted in Anwar's lawyer Gopal Sri Ram asking if the court wanted the matter addressed now.

However, Justice Arifin ordered the hearing into the  appeal to proceed.

Move after verdict

Shafee told reporters outside court that he would ask the judiciary to move for contempt after the verdict has been delivered in the Sodomy II appeal.

"We have to stop Anwar from making stupid statements," he said.

On Anwar asking him to go back to law school, Shafee said it was Anwar’s right to say so as long as it is not defamatory.

"(But) when he attacked the court (when Anwar said court will not convict him if he retires from politics), it is as if he is saying that the court, the government as well as the prosecution are in cahoots.

“It is as if he is saying that the court is unfair and has no integrity,” he said.

Meanwhile, Anwar told reporters outside court that he would consult with his lawyers.

"One by one, lah. Why does the prosecution want to charge me for the fourth time?" he asked.- mk

Shafee mahu Anwar disabit hina mahkamah

Citernya sini dan sini...

cheers.