Senior lawyer Karpal Singh said that the alleged affair between a DPP with the star witness was a serious offence and had brought the entire prosecution team into disrepute.

NONE Karpal ( right ) said to make matters worse, DPP Farah Azlina Latif and complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan did not issue any affidavit to deny the allegation.

“For us (the defence), whatever is maintained by (opposition leader) Anwar (Ibrahim) in his affidavit over the affair remains unrebutted. Hence, whatever is alleged must be deemed to be true,” Karpal said, citing case laws.

There are also allegations, Karpal said, that Saiful had gained access to the prosecution’s documents by using Farah.

This is a serious offence, he said, as the alleged affair had resulted in a possible leak of prosecution documents and this further brings the prosecution into disrepute.

The opposition has always maintained that Anwar is facing trumped-up charges of sodomy, the second after 10 years.

Karpal said the investigation papers are classified under the Official Secrets Act 1972, and there is a possibility that Saiful and Farah had violated the Act.

NONE Anwar had, in his affidavit, complained that Farah could be in violation of section 8 (1) of the Act for disseminating such confidential documents, while Saiful could be in violation of section 8(2) for having access to the documents.

Karpal also said it was necessary for attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail to submit an affidavit to clarify matters.

Frivolous application

Solicitor-general II Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden, in asking the court to dismiss the application, maintained that Saiful did not have access to the evidence.

He said evidence such as the police and medical reports have already been in the public domain since 2008, including in Malaysiakini.   

“Hence, as they were in the public domain there is nothing in conflict. But what Saiful relates is his personal experience. What is related in camera (closed proceeding) is what is new. But even that, the court had barred the public including reporters from the gallery,” he said.

mohd saiful bukhari azlan 4 at jawi 271108 “Saiful ( right ) may have access to the documents in the public domain, but this had not affected his testimony as required under the Evidence Act,” he said.

Yusof also said that Farah was only brought in on Jan 20, 2010, replacing former DPP Shamsul Sulaiman, who had retired and by then the documents were (already) there.

The solicitor-general reiterated that according to investigating officer Supt Jude Blacious Pereira’s affidavit, only DPP Mohd Hanafiah had access to the investigation papers and documents.

The others, he said, who had access were himself, DPP Nordin Hassan and DPP Noorin Badaruddin, when copies were extended to them.

Yusof said Farah has not been involved in determining the strategy of the prosecution, as he does this himself.

“She does not influence who is next to be called. She is only involved in typing and general duties.”

Mohd Yusof submitted that the independence of the prosecutor would not be affected even in the event of a relationship between the two.

“Even if she were in love with (Saiful), she cannot leak evidence as she doesn’t question witnesses. So, how would any relationship with him affect our independence?,” the solicitor-general asked.

Following this, Yusof submitted that the court should dismiss the striking-out application as this is an abuse of the court process, clearly intended to delay the trial.