In an unexpected turn of events, opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim today gave a statement from the dock instead of the witness stand in his defence to the sodomy charge at the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

Anwar has three options - to testify under oath from the witness stand, give a statement from the dock where he cannot be cross-examined, or reserve his right to remain silent.

The options were spelled out by Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah when hearing resumed this morning.

Anwar told justice Zabidin that he would give his statement from the dock, which means the prosecution cannot question him.

If the statement is given from the witness stand, Anwar can be subject to cross-examination by the prosecution, hence the evidence given is given maximum weightage.

In the first two trials 10 years ago, Anwar took the witness stand in defending against the abuse of power as well as the Sodomy I charges.

NONE Anwar is charged with sodomising his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, 25, at the Desa Damansara condominium between 3.01pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.

After finishing in giving his statement from the dock for nearly two hours, the first hour while standing and the second while seated, Anwar was asked why he had chosen this option, to which he replied with a statement that the court had acted unfairly to him.

“The court has made a prejudgment on me and similarly the Court of Appeal judgment had attacked me although I am entitled to exhaust any legal avenues available,” he said.

He also cited the Nelson Mandela case in 1963 in explaining why he chose to say it from the dock, reflecting his distrust of the present Premier Najib Abdul Razak who allegedly had orchestrated this move, a month before he stood for the Permatang Pauh by-election.

In his testimony, Anwar said all this is nothing but a conspiracy by Prime Minister Najib to send him into political oblivion.

“I therefore declare that I have no faith whatsoever that justice will prevail in these proceedings.

“This is not a criminal trial. It is a charade staged by the powers that be to put me out of action in order that they remain in power,” he said.

He went on further, saying this was similarly done by Dr Mahathir Mohamad in 1998.

Some see that the move could be detrimental to Anwar’s defence.

Karpal: Statements from the dock have happened before

Lead counsel Karpal Singh said the court allows this (statements from the dock) as these have happened before.

“There have been numerous cases in the past where an accused person could give their statement from the dock.

“The court should consider Anwar’s statement given as evidence before the court and put the necessary weightage (consideration) to it.”

When asked when he decided on this, Anwar said it is something which he had thought of since the judge found there was a prima facie case against him and had found Saiful to be a “truthful” witness.

“I consulted with my lawyers before this and took some time to draft it. In 1998, I took the witness stand but it did not result in...(an acquittal).”

Anwar, in his two-hour statement, said the latest sodomy charge is a scurrilous attack on him by certain political masters, utilising Saiful, the hospital and government chemists to prove its case.

Part of his allegation falls on Saiful meeting Najib and Rosmah two days before the alleged sodomy incident, and calling former IGP Musa Hassan and meeting former Malacca police chief Mohd Rodwan Mohd Yusof.

He earlier stated that his latest sodomy charge features the same people - Musa and present attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail - also to be behind it.

Anwar cited the numerous occasions the court and judge Justice Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah had decided against him, when the decision should have been otherwise.

This is something which he hoped to prove in his defence evidence which he described will show that while the prosecution claims to have proof of the presence of “seminal fluid” or “sperm”, this is completely unfounded.

“In fact, this purported proof is nothing but pure fabrication, a fact which is not that unusual considering the past history of the prosecution in this regard. If they had had any such forensic evidence, they would have guarded it for dear life rather than let it be handled in such a sloppy manner.”

There are questions raised as the said sample retrieved from Saiful’s rectum was not kept under the proposed and suggested conditions by the Hospital Kuala Lumpur doctors, suggesting tampering of evidence.

The sample was opened, re-packed and marked with tape, which is easily broken.

Furthermore, the sample was handed to the chemist 90 hours after they had been retrieved and it was stored not in laboratory conditions but in a questionable manner, against the HKL doctors’ proposal.

Despite this inconsistency, the court accepted the evidence, he said.

Related stories:

Najib, Rosmah, Musa subpoenaed

'I never had any sexual relations with Saiful'

'Come what may, I shall never surrender'

PKR leader's legal travails enter crucial phase