Saiful’s Contradictions
By
Malaysian Spring
Mark Twain once
said, “Always tell the truth. That way, you don't have to remember what you
said.”
A truthful account
of events does not need any scheming, planning or coordinating to make the details
logical and consistent. It does not care for unexpected events, unknown
circumstances and unexpected witnesses getting in the way because they will all
automatically validate each other. Truth has a beauty and simplicity which does
not require anybody to make improbable assumptions, illogical explanations and
unlikely postulations of human behaviour to fit the narrative.
Conspirators can try
to fabricate imaginary events and cover up the truth with lies and deceit but
the truth will eventually come out like water dribbling out of a leaky
container. Small details which do not fit get in the way like jagged edges
which rip the story apart. Lies may need more lies to cover up the holes that
appear under examination but more lies may punch more holes in the framework
until the whole thing collapses and the deception is exposed.
In Saiful’s allegation of sodomy against Anwar
Ibrahim, so many contradictions and gaping holes have appeared in his story
that it has all but fallen apart. No reasonable person will believe that the
alleged act actually happened in the face of such contradictions and illogical
explanations bordering on the bizarre and the ludicrous.
A
contradictory charge
In the first place the charge itself is a serious
contradiction to the star witness’s public insistence that he was sodomized
against his will.
So why was Anwar charged for consensual sodomy under
Section 377B when it should have been Section 377C for non-consensual sodomy?
This is not a matter of the Attorney-General’s prerogative to prefer a charge
which carries a lighter sentence as claimed by the prosecution. Whether there
was consent or not changes the whole nature of the act and the thrust of the
prosecution. In 377C the prosecution must prove force was used, in 377B it need
not. In forced sodomy the prosecution has a co-operative witness to testify
against the accused, in consensual sodomy it must find other ways. In real life
one does not the luxury of a co-operative witness AND not having to prove force
which is clearly a distortion of the truth and prejudicial to the defense.
Naturally the prosecution would rather not take up
the daunting task of proving how a frail 62 year old man with a bad back can
forcibly sodomize a lad bigger and stronger than him. But now we have a case in
which the charge does not tally with what the accuser claimed happened. In any
healthy judiciary the case would be thrown out of court based on this crucial
contradiction but we do not have a healthy judiciary.
If indeed the act was consensual why mobilize the
whole apparatus of state to investigate and prosecute Anwar with countless
manhours and millions spent when the act was allegedly between two consenting
adults? Why such ferocious effort when has the government shown no interest in
prosecuting anybody else for consensual sodomy despite a thriving gay
community?
Saiful’s
contradictory behaviour
Saiful claimed to have been sodomized a total of
eight times against his will over a period of months so why didn’t he report to
the police the first time it happened? We know that he is not gay as he has a
fiancé and being sodomized must be downright humiliating and disgusting so it
is incredulous to think that he did nothing but tolerated the act.
Bearing in mind that Anwar is physically no match
for him and as an opposition leader has no power to put him in any fear,
Saiful’s claim of being sodomized multiple times is a serious contradiction to
his public stance that the act was non-consensual.
After the last alleged incident in the condominium,
Saiful waited for two days before making a police report. He went to work as
usual the next day and in the evening attended a function in Anwar’s house
where he served drinks to the guests. The next day he sent a cheerful quit
e-mail to Anwar. By no stretch of the imagination is this the behaviour of a
person who has been forcibly sodomized against his will.
Saiful’s public insistence of non-consensual sodomy
goes beyond the material contradiction in the charge preferred against Anwar.
He had sworn this on the Koran in a mosque during the Permatang Pauh
by-election campaign under the glare of the press and TV cameras and allowed BN
to make political capital of this against Anwar. If we believe his claim in
court that he had no political motive we have to admit that he must be the most
publicity hungry rape victim in the world bar none, male or female.
Although Saiful’s response to the supposedly
non-consensual acts is bewildering and abnormal, details of the persons he met
prior to making his police report would blow any doubts of a political
conspiracy away.
Saiful’s
meetings
Saiful has admitted in court that he met Najib Razak
who was the deputy prime minister at that time two days before the last alleged
act to discuss his problem. For an ordinary citizen to be able to gain access
to the second most powerful person in the country is highly suspicious but what
he told the court of the DPM’s response is even more unbelievable. According to
Saiful, Najib said his problem with Anwar is a personal matter and he could not
do anything.
We are asked to believe that Najib passed over the
opportunity to capture and destroy his greatest political nemesis over a
criminal act. Bearing in mind that Section 13 of the Criminal Procedure Code
states that it is an offence for anyone to withhold information and not to make
a police report if they know a crime has been committed this would mean that
Najib knowingly abetted a crime.
Saiful also admitted that he met a high ranking
police officer, SAC Rodwan in the Concord Hotel Shah Alam a day before the last
alleged sodomy act. Prior to this he had talked to Rodwan on the phone at least
8 times. Rodwan is well known for his dubious role in spiking a mattress with
Anwar’s blood sample in sodomy I. Furthermore, Saiful has also talked to the
IGP Musa Hassan at least once over the phone.
Why would a meeting with a police officer ostensibly
to discuss his sodomy problem be held in a hotel room if not to keep it secret?
Why the need for such secrecy if not to discuss something shifty? Why did the
police fail to set a trap for Anwar to catch him red handed with video
recordings “Chua Soi Lek style” if indeed the sodomy claims were true? The
reason why such a trap was never set up was because no sodomy ever took place.
Saiful also said that he met Ezam, political
turncoat who betrayed Anwar’s trust and Mumtaz Jaafar, an aide of Rosmah
Mansor, Najib’s wife and both of them advised him against lodging a police
report. We don’t know which is more incredulous – that he shared his
humiliating problem with people whom he has no close personal relationship with
or that they advised him not to make a police report.
Saiful’s
court testimony
Saiful testified in court that he was propositioned
indecently by Anwar in a condominium in Kuala Lumpur and he was shocked,
horrified and disgusted by Anwar’s direct advance.
Let us pause a minute here. This is a man who
claimed to have been sodomized no less than seven (7) times before all over
Asia so why the shock, horror and disgust? The details do not match the alleged
circumstances.
Even more telling is his description of what
happened later. After his supposedly “shock, horror and disgust,” he took a
shower, emerged with a towel and lay down on the bed after which Anwar pulled
the curtains, switched off the lights and the alleged non-consensual act took
place. Surely this is stretching the definition of non-consensual too far?
Saiful also claimed that he did not wash his anus
and did not pass motion for 2 days to preserve the evidence. If he had wanted
to nail Anwar why didn’t he go immediately to the police instead of engaging in
such heroics for 2 days before making a report?
Saiful’s claim that Anwar was his idol is contrary
to his college mates who said he was known to be very pro-BN and anti-Anwar. In
an interview which was recorded on video, one college mate said that when he
heard that Saiful has taken a job in Anwar’s office he assumed that Saiful’s
intention was to do something bad to Anwar.
Prosecution
or Persecution?
In sexual offences of this nature the primary fact
to be established first is medical evidence of penetration. No prosecutors in
any healthy, functioning democracy will bring such a case to court without
supportive medical evidence.
Here we have this dubious case rammed to trial
despite two independent medical reports certifying that there was no evidence
of penetration which shows clearly that this is no ordinary case of a victim
seeking justice.
The prosecution has also fought tooth and nail to
transfer this case from the Sessions Court to the High Court despite the lower
court being qualified to hear the case. If they have any real evidence they
could have convicted Anwar in any court instead of behaving as if their whole
case depends on who hears it.
Why did the prosecution refuse to give the witness
list, witness statements and details of any evidence beneficial to the defense
as required under the Criminal Procedure Code, even fighting all the way to the
Federal Court? This appears to be a trial by ambush with the flexibility to
change the details as required to suit the ongoing trial.
The only physical evidence possessed by the
prosecutors appears to be Anwar’s DNA sample allegedly extracted from Saiful’s
rectum. As doctors have found no evidence of penetration how can this be
possible?
Let us reflect a moment on this. Without penetration
there can be no incriminating DNA extracted from Saiful’s rectum. So either two
independent medical reports were false or the so-called evidence was cooked.
The first medical report was done by a highly experienced expatriate Burmese
doctor who examined Saiful without knowing beforehand the political
circumstances of the case. The second medical report was prepared by three
specialists at a government hospital (HKL) who confirmed the first doctor’s
finding.
Meanwhile the investigation and prosecution is under
the control of a government known to be authoritarian and economical with the
truth with an arrogant attitude of might makes right. Malaysians will remember
the shameful spectacle of sodomy I and the conviction of Anwar in 1998 by a
kangaroo court. Many of the actors in sodomy I such as Gani Patail (chief
public prosecutor in sodomy I, now Attorney-General), Musa Hassan (chief of
police investigation team and mattress carrier in sodomy I, now IGP) and SAC
Rodwan (DNA evidence fabricator in sodomy I, now highest ranking police officer
in Melaka) are also playing starring roles in sodomy II.
Against this background the reader should decide who
is more trustworthy – the four doctors or the prosecutors?
Lies
and liars
All that has transpired so far points to a sordid
political conspiracy to put the opposition leader behind bars and destroy his
political career at a point when the political hegemony of the ruling regime has
been threatened like never before.
Saiful has come off as a simpleton liar who fails to
make his lies logical, believable and consistent. His tale is full of
contradictions and his behaviour does not match the circumstances which he
paints to the world. Although we should not expect too much of a college
dropout he appears to have been badly coached.
The prosecution has given the unmistakable
impression of a crude political persecution rather than seeking justice in good
faith. The court processes fall far short of international standards for a fair
trial.
On the sidelines Malaysians and the international
community are left bewildered at the arrogant recklessness of the ruling party
to try to pull off such a transparent stunt under the watchful eyes of the
international press in the era of rapid information dissemination via the
Internet.
The BN government is either dense enough to believe
that they can pull off a brilliant conspiracy to convince the world of Anwar’s
guilt or are contend to join the ranks of international pariahs like Zimbabwe,
Myanmar and North Korea.
At this point the conspiracy has all but broken
apart. Any sensible regime with any sense of survival would abandon this vile
conspiracy but the BN regimes seem hell bent on executing its own destruction.
