Jailed ex-deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim's bid for bail pending the outcome of his final appeal against his sodomy conviction was today rejected by the Federal Court which ruled that it was not empowered to grant such a request.

Federal Court judge Abdul Hamid Mohamad who sat with Justices Rahmah Hussein and Tengku Baharuddin Shah Tengku, ruled that the court had no jurisdiction to grant Anwar and his co-accused Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja a stay of execution and bail pending the outcome of their appeals.

This is the third time that Anwar's application for bail has been rejected. His two previous applications were rejected at the lower courts

Anwar, wearing a neck and a back brace due to a slipped disc, appeared calm after the ruling was delivered and was seen giving an expression of resignation to his wife, Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, who was seated at the public gallery.

"I am disappointed. They have preempted the judgment of my appeal. The judges are quite prejudiced and we are not going to get an honest judgment. The appeal is a foregone conclusion," he alleged to reporters later.

He added that the decision, however, would not lessen his determination to continue fighting for democracy and the rule of law.

"I am still optimistic that there is still a chance for justice to prevail. There is greater awareness among the public on issues of law ... we recognise this."

No jurisdiction

Shouts of reformasi were heard outside Palace of Justice courts complex in Putrajaya where some 150-odd supporters of the jailed politician had gathered to await the outcome of the bail application.

With the decision, Anwar will have to return to the Sungai Buloh prison where he will continue serving his nine-year sentence for sodomy pending the decision on his appeal against it. The Federal Court has said that it would deliver its verdict soon .

Anwar is appealing against the nine-year jail sentence imposed by the High Court in August 2000 after the politician was found guilty of sodomising Azizan Abu Bakar, the former driver of his wife.

Sukma, who was jailed six years and ordered to be whipped four times for abetting Anwar, is also appealing. Their convictions and sentences were upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Anwar has already been in jail for more than five years, having completed a sentence for a corruption conviction.

If the politician's sodomy appeal fails, the politician will remain in jail until at least 2009 even with a one-third remission of sentence for good behaviour. Sukma, who begun serving his six-year jail sentence last year will be due for release in 2007 with the one-third remission.

In giving the grounds for his ruling, Justice Abdul Hamid said that Section 89 of the Court of Judicature Act (Coja) - under which the application was made - did not give the court the jurisdiction to grant stay of executions for criminal cases.

He said after scrutinising the provision, he found that it was 'ambiguous and did not make any sense', and expressed suspicion that there might be some words missing from a whole sentence in the said section.

He declined to put words into the provision (so as to make some sense of it) - as suggested by Anwar's second lead counsel Karpal Singh - stating that such an act may led the court to 'usurp' the function of parliament.

'Honest judgement'

"The function of the court is to interpret the law as made by parliament and apply them. If parliament - even due to a mistake had omitted certain words, it is for parliament to rectify it through an amendment of the law," he said.

"We apply the law that is there, not what we think should be there. The only conclusion we can arrive is that parliament had intentionally or unintentionally not given us the power to stay execution in criminal cases but gives such power in civil cases."

He said even if the court had the jurisdiction to entertain such applications, it still has to consider whether there are special and exceptional circumstances that warrant a stay of execution.

"Taking into consideration all facts and circumstances of this case, we do not think that there are (special and exceptional circumstances)," he said.

Concluding, Abdul Hamid said that the court also did not want to preempt its upcoming ruling on Anwar's sodomy appeal.

"We also at this stage would not like to prejudge our decision in the appeal. We prefer to maintain the status quo," he said. He reiterated the court's promise to deliver an honest judgment as soon as possible.

"Give us the chance to read the records and the numerous authorities submitted by counsel so that we can come up with an honest judgment. I repeat that we will come up with an honest judgment - whichever way it may go - based on law, evidence and nothing else."

Anwar also thanked the foreign observers who had attended the appeal since it started on May 10, saying that their presence had somewhat influenced the court's conduct during the appeal.

"With the presence of these international observers, the court had conducted the proceedings in a fair manner unlike previously," he said.