SODOMY II From washed underwear, political conspiracy and the demeanour of alleged victim Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan to questionable DNA found, Anwar Ibrahim's defence team took two-and-a-half days to argue to the Federal Court why the PKR de facto leader should be acquitted on the charge.

However, the biggest news that caught everybody by surprise was the appearance of retired Federal Court judge, Gopal Sri Ram, to lead the defence team.

The 70-year-old, who retired in 2010, came under the spotlight of the media, which could have been uncanny for a former judge asked to lead Anwar's defence team.

This came after senior lawyer and former Bar Council president Sulaiman Abdullah could not lead Anwar’s team as he has still not fully recovered from a leg surgery.

Sri Ram’s appearance for Anwar resulted in quite a few people, particularly members of the legal profession, including DAP's Segambut MP Lim Lip Eng and Gerakan Youth chief Tan Keng Liang, raising questions .  

The lawyers argued that Sri Ram’s appearance in court went against the Malaysian Bar resolution that states “a retired judge of the superior courts should be prohibited or restricted by law from appearing as counsel in court”.

The Bar resolution also states that the council was proposing an amendment to the Legal Profession Act 1976 to the Attorney-General’s Chambers to achieve this objective.

However, Chief Justice of the Federal Court Arifin Zakaria had commented last year that there was nothing wrong when asked about Sri Ram’s expected appearance for Pakatan Rakyat in several election petition cases then.

“As far as I am concerned, when they retire, they can do whatever they want as they have their freedom, and we cannot deprive them of their rights. Ex-judges are also human beings... and we should not curtail (their rights).

“Previously, (former Lord President) Salleh Abbas appeared before us. It does not matter as the court will decide the case on merits and facts. It does not matter who appears before us. It is the same,” Justice Arifin had said.

Saiful's demeanour questioned

On the first day of Anwar's appeal, Sri Ram attacked Saiful's credibility as a witness, a finding made by the Kuala Lumpur High Court and the Court of Appeal as well.

Sri Ram said the use of K-Y jelly as a lubricant is in question as it was not stated in Saiful's police report nor listed among the items seized from the alleged incident.

The retired judge also said a person who was not willing to be sodomised would not want to bring a lubricant along. He also pointed out that if the lubricant was used, Saiful ( left ) would not have complained of pain.

Saiful, in his testimony in camera, said Anwar was rough and fast in the sexual act on him.

Sri Ram also said that while the underwear that Saiful used during and after the alleged sodomy incident was washed, there were stains found on a second underwear, and despite this Saiful said he had not washed his backside nor defecated for two days after he was sodomised.  

He also quizzed Saiful's appearance in Anwar's house the day after the alleged sodomy. There was a photograph of Saiful at the event, and the former aide agreed that it was him.

“Saiful seemed quite happy. Cameras don't tell lies, and he was not glum,” the lead defence counsel said, adding that if Saiful's testimony is to be believed, then “we can also believe the moon is made of green cheese”.

Sri Ram also questioned Saiful's hesitation in lodging a police report, which he did two days after the alleged incident despite meeting with a senior police officer, ACP Mohd Rodwan Mohd Yusof, and calling then inspector-general of police Musa Hassan several days earlier.

Political conspiracy and believable DNA?

Another member of Anwar’s defence team, N Surendran, submitted on the point of political conspiracy, where Anwar had claimed, in his statement from the dock, that Najib Abdul Razak, who was then deputy prime minister, had met with Saiful.

This meeting was verified by the star prosecution witness Saiful himself, who said he met with Najib in the deputy prime minister’s Taman Duta home on June 24, 2008.

“This shows the political conspiracy, or a pre-arranged plan to do this, as Saiful had, earlier that day, met ACP Rodwan in a hotel room in Kuala Lumpur,” Surendran pointed out.

He further said it was wrong of the Court of Appeal to read Anwar's unsworn statement as a “mere denial” , since all those events did really take place and also, Saiful called former IGP Musa the day after he met with Najib.

Among other matters, Sangeet Kaur Deo raised the issue of whether Anwar's arrest on July 16, 2008, was lawful and questioned whether the items seized from the opposition leader's cell, after he was detained overnight, amounted to trickery and deception for his refusal to give his DNA samples at Hospital Kuala Lumpur later that night.

Ram Karpal Singh submitted on the possibility of the samples taken for chemical analyses being tampered with as case investigating officer, Supt Jude Blacious Pereira, testified that he cut open a big plastic bag containing the samples taken by the HKL doctors from Saiful on June 28.

Ram Karpal ( left ) also submitted on the presence of a DNA, in an 18 allele of an unidentified male, from Saiful's samples taken from swabs of the high rectum and peri-anal regions.

The presence of the unidentified male DNA, which is different from “Male Y” (Anwar’s DNA) only shows that it is contaminated.

Ram further questioned the the “pristine” condition of the samples taken from Saiful’s anus 96 hours after the alleged sodomy, despite it not being kept in freezer as recommended by the doctors.

The Sodomy II appeal hearing continues in the Federal Court in Putrajaya tomorrow, with submissions from senior lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who has been appointed by the government to lead the prosecution.

Related stories

'Semen found but no proof of penetration'

'Justice is for small people like Saiful, too'

Anwar's defiantly upbeat, Shafee fights time

Survey shows M'sians lack faith in judiciary

'Amused' Bar Council zips lips on Sri Ram issue

Don: Bar Council ruling on judges 'not law'

So why are Saiful backers covering their faces?

KJ, it’s not Anwar but judiciary on trial

Anwar’s fate in the hands of five judges

What's wrong, law allows ex-judges as counsel