A United Nations envoy has questioned the appointment of three junior judges to hear the appeal of former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim against his conviction and nine-year jail sentence o­n the charge of sodomy.

The three judges this morning upheld the High Court decision in August 2000, finding Anwar and his adopted brother Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja guilty of sodomising Azizan Abu Bakar, the former driver of Anwar's wife.

UN Special Rapporteur o­n the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Param Cumarasamy said Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim should clarify why several other senior judges in the Court of Appeal were excluded from hearing the case.

"For reasons best known to whoever named the panel, the seniors were excluded. It is not certain whether it was the former chief justice Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah or Ahmad Fairuz, the then president of the Court of Appeal who is now the chief justice. By right, it should be the President of the Court of Appeal.... The public have a right to know," he said.

Gloomy hope

Although Anwar has a right of appeal to the Federal Court, Param ( left ) expressed gloomy hope o­n its outcome.

"The present chief justice will empanel the Bench to hear Anwar's final appeal to the Federal Court from the decision delivered today. He has previously as judge of the Court of Appeal sat with two others and dismissed Anwar's appeal to that court from the judgment of Justice S Augustine Paul in the first trial.

"What hope has Anwar for justice in such circumstances?" he asked.

Anwar has been jailed since 1999 after having been found guilty of corruption and sodomy.

In April 2000, Ahmad Fairuz was o­ne of three Court of Appeal judges to uphold the decision by Augustine Paul to find Anwar guilty o­n four charges of corrupt practices. Anwar was sentenced to a six-year jail term.

Anwar further received a nine-year sentence for sodomising Azizan.

In addition to the appeal rejection, the court this morning also revoked bail for Sukma. He will start serving his six-year sentence today and will also receive four strokes of the rotan.

Bleaker situation

Meanwhile, several non-government organisations criticised the Court of Appeal decision saying it cast a darker shadow over the reputation of the judiciary.

In an immediate press statement, Amnesty International said the appellate court's decision added to "already widespread perception that in politically-sensitive cases, the independence of the judiciary can no longer be guaranteed".

"Four years ago, it was hoped that this case would spur efforts to restore respect for fundamental human rights and the rule of law. Today, the situation looks much bleaker," said AI.

In addition, the organisation said the action of the Court of Appeal judges reflected a "predictable pattern" since Anwar's arrest in 1998, where authorities routinely crack down o­n political dissent.

"The use of selective prosecution, the Internal Security Act and other restrictive laws have created a human rights situation in Malaysia that seems to be at its worst for over a decade."

Justice denied

In another press statement, Penang-based social reform movement Aliran said although it was not surprising that the conviction o­n Anwar was upheld, the actual rejection nevertheless caused shock among many.

"There is definitely shock because many people find it difficult to accept the fact that the court could ignore so much overwhelming evidence adduced so forcefully to demolish the flimsy, concocted and controversial evidence that convicted Anwar," said Aliran president P Ramakrishnan.

Ramakrishnan said Anwar's case had been marked by actions by the judiciary to deny the former deputy premier all avenues that would have helped his case.

"Overwhelming evidence of unfairness and bias was adduced to support this appeal; that is, how the charges were amended mid-way; how weeks of evidence was expunged when the case did not go as expected; how no specific date could be determined as to when the so-called sodomy took place; how the star witness stumbled and fumbled while contradicting himself..."

Ramakrishnan stressed that the decision of the Court of Appeal to ignore these "damning evidence" had wrought a devastating impact o­n the judiciary.

"Having descended o­nce again into the quagmire of the 1988 sacking of former lord president Salleh Abas, it is with horror that we have to raise the question: Is there hope in our judiciary?"

Lack of independence

Human rights organisation Suaram expressed concern over the dismissal of the appeal and the revocation of bail for Anwar's adopted brother Sukma.

"Many misgivings have been said with regard to the widely perceived political persecution of Anwar and the role played by the judiciary in 'legalising' his continued incarceration. Public confidence is at the lowest ebb as Anwar failed to obtain fair trials," said Suaram coordinator Eric Paulsen in a press statement.

Paulsen said Anwar had been the recipient of a series of "questionable rulings", including the refusal of bail, the barring of witnesses from testifying, and threatened and actual contempt of court proceedings against defence lawyers.

"Today's verdict, an unfortunate o­ne for justice, the rule of law and human rights, o­nce again seemingly points to the direction of a lack of judicial independence," he asserted.