Anwar Ibrahim's application for bail will be heard by the Kuala Lumpur Court of Appeal this Friday.

The Court of Appeal had o­n April 18 upheld the sodomy conviction and nine-year sentence of Anwar Ibrahim. No grounds were given for the decision.

Justices Pajan Singh Gill, Richard Malanjum and Hashim Mohd Yusof also turned down Anwar's (oral) application for bail, without giving any reasons too. They had required Anwar to make a formal application.

The reasons for granting Anwar bail are clear and compelling, simple and straightforward. They are listed below:

1) Anwar Ibrahim was charged for sodomy which is a bailable offence. This point was highlighted by Anwar's lawyers and also by Suhakam which as far back as two years ago had in a statement o­n May 31, 2001 declared:

"Suhakam notes that under ordinary circumstances, a person charged with the offences that DSAI (Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim) had been charged with could have been granted bail pending trial and appeal."

2) Bail is normally allowed pending the outcome of an appeal, except for exceptional circumstances.

After a o­ne-third remission, Anwar Ibrahim had served his first (corruption conviction) sentence o­n April 14. He was then eligible for bail.

Even though his appeal against his second (sodomy) conviction and sentence was rejected, he is still eligible for bail for he has appealed to the Federal Court.

In other words, Anwar has not exhausted all avenues of appeal. His sentence need not be served. He should be released o­n bail.

3) Former grounds for rejection of Anwar's bail no longer hold as Anwar's previous bail application was rejected o­n the grounds that Anwar may (i) fabricate evidence; (ii) interfere with police investigations and (iii) tamper with witnesses.

This argument is no longer applicable (is deemed "irrelevant") as Anwar's case is now at the appeal stage, which means that:

(i) no new evidence will be adduced other than what was already adduced in the earlier trial; (ii) no new or further police investigations are involved; and (iii) no witnesses are involved.

4) The courts have granted bail to those charged even for murder, which is a non-bailable offence in Malaysia.

As Anwar's lawyer Karpal Singh would remark after the Court of Appeal had turned down Anwar's appeal and oral bail application: "This is not o­ne of those cases where bail ought to be rejected. This is not a capital offence case. Bail has been allowed even in the murder case involving senior lawyer Balwant Singh. I can't understand why the prosecution should object to bail being allowed."

In August last year, Justice Augustine Paul had allowed prominent lawyer Balwant Singh, who was facing a murder charge (a non-bailable offence), to be released o­n bail, o­n the grounds of age and health.

This was the same judge who had denied bail to Anwar Ibrahim who was then facing trial in the Kuala Lumpur High Court o­n four charges of corruption under Ordinance 22, and recovering from a near-lethal assault in a cell in Bukit Aman by the former police chief Rahim Noor.

5) The Court of Appeal decision must be consistent with the High Court's decision to grant bail to Sukma.

The fact that High Court justice Jaka Arifin had granted bail to Anwar Ibrahim's Indonesian-born adopted brother, Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja, who was jointly tried, convicted and sentenced confirms the fact that sodomy is a bailable offence and that Anwar should have been granted bail from the very start.

Anwar's lawyers had pointed out this very glaring judicial "inconsistency" to the Court of Appeal hearing in their arguments for bail. They had argued that everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law and no double standards should apply. To deny Anwar bail would be an infringement of his constitutional right to be treated equally before the law.

It must have occurred to the three Court of Appeal judges that in the light of the above, refusing Anwar bail would make the courts look glaringly contradictory.

It is with great likelihood that this was the reason - o­ne which is highly irregular - behind them revoking Sukma's bail (without any application from the AG) and ordering him to serve his sentence with immediate effect.

Karpal Singh would remark after the recent decision by the Court of Appeal: "The judges themselves revoked it. This is quite wrong. In fact, bail should be extended since he has been o­n bail since his conviction by the High Court. I don't see any difference between now and the time when his appeal is made to the Federal Court."

In a recent exclusive interview with malaysiakini , Suhakam chief Abu Talib Othman was of the opinion that "there were a couple of things which did not appear to be regular procedures" in the Anwar Ibrahim trials.

"For instance, no grounds were given for the decision and the judges revoked bail for Sukma Darmawan in the absence of an application by the prosecution. Why are judges taking it upon themselves to do this?"

As for the Court of Appeal judges not giving any reasons for rejecting Anwar's appeal and application of bail Abu Talib commented:

"It is very important that the court must be transparent and give reasons for their decisions in matters particularly involving public interest. For these judges, I think they should examine themselves and be sure that justice is not o­nly done but seen to be done in all cases."

6) Anwar Ibrahim should be freed o­n bail due to health reasons.

Anwar is suffering from a prolapsed disc and in his application for bail has urged the court to consider his health condition.

Anwar has stated in his application for bail that "only a stay of execution and bail pending appeal will facilitate my urgent need to travel to Germany to seek the requisite and urgent treatment since the special facility for lower back surgery-slipped disc is available there."

He has highlighted Suhakam's view that "a patient has a right to his or her informed choice of treatment and that "there are no problems in law for DSAI to be sent abroad for medical treatment."

He has also brought to the court's attention that the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) in its final report at Geneva (Jan 20-23) "is also fully supportive of my wish and right to seek the treatment of my choice."

7) There is legal precedence to allow bail for health reasons even to a murder accused.

In a landmark decision made at the Kota Kinabalu High Court in January this year, justice Ian Chin allowed an ailing businessman charged for the alleged murder of his wife, to be released o­n bail to enable him to undergo surgery for his heart.

Anwar Ibrahim has been charged for alleged sodomy, a far lesser charge when compared to murder.

8) The court could grant Anwar a 'conditional bail'.

Karpal Singh had also told the Court of Appeal that the court could, as a compromise, even give a ' conditional bail ' if they so wished. For example, the court could stipulate that Anwar could be granted bail but will not be allowed to leave the country for his spinal surgery.

9) Continued imprisonment would be unfair.

In his application for bail, Anwar stated that he should not be made to serve his sodomy sentence since there was a probability that the Court of Appeal decision would be overturned by the Federal Court.

"There are novel points of law involved in my appeal to the Federal Court, points of law which will, in all probability, be sustained in my favour," he said.

Anwar added his appeal would take a considerable time to be disposed of since the Court of Appeal has yet to even release a written judgment. Hence, his continued imprisonment would be unfair, he said.

"I respectfully state that I have been in incarceration since my arrest in 1998 until April 14, 2003 which is still continuing although my guilt is yet to be established finally beyond reasonable doubt."

10) 'National security' should not be an excuse not to grant bail Anwar was charged for sodomy.

The PM had insisted from the very start that the charges against Anwar had nothing to do with politics. Similarly, Augustine Paul and Arifin Jaka had time and again refused to allow Anwar to build his defence along the lines of a 'political conspiracy'.

It flies in the face of logic therefore, to deem o­ne who is prosecuted for sodomy a threat to the security of the whole nation.

Further, it can be safe to assume that Anwar and his family would do everything possible to prevent any incident threatening 'national security', and which would thereby jeopardise his bail and could even cause the court to rescind it.

Finally, the political scenario at present has changed considerably in comparison to what had happened in 1998. Added to that, Anwar is in poor health and would surely not want to risk it any further.

Fears of a threat to 'national security' is quite unfounded especially when the country has such a committed and competent police force capable of handling any potential threat.

If it is the earnest desire of the Court of Appeal which sits this Friday to hear Anwar's formal bail application, to do justice and to ensure that justice is seen to be done - they are left with o­nly o­ne decision - free Anwar Ibrahim o­n bail.