Jailed deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy appeal began at the Court of Appeal today with his lawyers attacking the credibility of the prosecution's star witness Azizan Abu Bakar.

Anwar's lead counsel Christopher Fernando described Azizan as "the most unreliable witness" and that the alleged sodomy victim had been "consistently inconsistent".

The lawyer said Azizan's evidence, o­n which the prosecution's case rest upon, was riddled with major inconsistencies and this showed that the charge against Anwar was "trumped up".

Anwar is appealing

against High Court judge Ariffin Jaka's decision o­n Aug 8, 2000 which sentenced him to nine years jail for sodomising Azizan, the former driver of Anwar's wife Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail.

The ex-deputy premier was charged with his adopted brother Indonesian Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja. They were alleged to have committed the offence at the latter's apartment in Tivoli Villas, Bangsar in Kuala Lumpur at 7.45pm between January and March 1993.

(Sukma was jailed six years and ordered to be whipped six times. He has yet to serve his sentence as he has been allowed bail pending the disposal of his appeal.)

Anwar's appeal was heard before justices Pajan Singh Gill, Hashim Mohd Yusof and Richard Malanjum. The court has fixed this whole week to hear it. If Anwar fails to set aside the conviction, he may have to remain in prison until 2009.

Heavy security

Anwar, wearing a neck brace, was escorted o­n his wheelchair to the courtroom by 11 personnel from the Prisons Department.

The dock in which he and his co-accused were seated, was guarded by 12 police personnel throughout the hearing.

Anwar is represented by Fernando, Karpal Singh, Sankara Nair, Zulkifli Nordin and Pawancheek Merican, while Sukma's lawyers are Gobind Singh Deo and Jagdeep Singh. The seven-member prosecution team is headed by Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail.

The ex-deputy premier queued from as early as 6.30am outside the court building. By 10.30am, there were more than 100 people outside the building, which also saw tight security.

In his argument, Fernando said the judge was wrong to have found Azizan to be a credible, reliable and honest witness.

He said this finding had contradicted the judge's own statements against Azizan which he made during the trial.

Contradictory statements

Fernando said Ariffin had o­nce described Azizan as "a witness who would say o­ne thing today and another thing the next day" and o­n another occasion, the judge admitted that the witness was evasive and failed to answer simple questions.

"It is mind-boggling that after having made such strong and significant remarks against the witness, the judge turns around (in his judgment) and said the witness is reliable," he said.

In his submission, Fernando said in convicting Anwar, the judge failed to consider the prosecution's lack of good faith when they amended the date of the alleged offence twice.

He said the original charge - which stated May 1994 as the date of the alleged offence - had to be amended following Azizan's testimony in Anwar's corruption trial (in which Anwar was jailed six years) that he (Azizan) was not sodomised after September 1992.

"The prosecution had shot themselves in the foot when their own witness had given evidence contradictory to the date as stated in the charge then. They had no choice but to change the charge to May 1992," he said.

The amendment did not last long when Sukma's alibi notice revealed that his Tivoli Villas apartment was not ready for occupation in May 1992.

"The prosecution was in an unenviable position. They faced a terrible dilemma. To salvage their case, they had to re-amend the charge. They can't go backward because a sodomy could not have happened in a non-existent place and so they settled to: o­ne night between January and March 1993," he said.

He added that all these amendments have to be viewed with the statement by former Attorney-General Mohtar Abdullah (now a Federal Court judge) that the prosecution has the record of Anwar's movement from 1992 until his arrest in September 1998.

"Assuming that the records existed, then why did the prosecution frame such a vague charge against the appellant?" asked Fernando.

Playing games

He said until today the prosecution failed to properly explain the multiple amendments, adding that the prosecution was playing games at the expense of Anwar's liberty.

He also questioned the judge's failure to consider Azizan's admission that he had never told the police that he was sodomised in 1994 and that he was instructed by investigation officer Musa Hassan.

"Based o­n these events, the o­nly conclusion that can be drawn is that the charges were false and fabricated.

"It was done just because the conspirators wanted to destroy and remove o­ne man," said the lawyer.

Fernando also said Arifin was wrong to have not properly considered the evidence given by senior lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon who testified that two main prosecutors, Gani and Azahar Mohamed, were involved in an attempt to extort false evidence against Anwar from Manjeet's client S Nallakarupan.

He said the court should not have allowed the two prosecutors to continue prosecuting Anwar and the duo's presence had vitiated the trial.

He claimed Arifin had made an unreasonable finding that Manjeet's testimony was irrelevant as it was not evidence o­n fabrication in regards to the sodomy trial but Anwar's corruption trial.

Fernando's submission continues tomorrow.