Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail told the Court of Appeal today that the credibility of the prosecution's star witness in Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy trial was not affected by the discrepancies in his testimony.

Abdul Gani ( photo ) said even if there was any discrepancies in complainant Azizan Abu Bakar's testimony, it did not affect the ingredients of the charge against Anwar and his co-accused Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja.

If anything, Azizan's evidence had o­nly "inspired confidence, his demeanour straightforward, and testimony bore the hallmark of truth", the public prosecutor said.

He said this in his submissions in reply to the arguments made by the defence team who concluded their case last Thursday.

One of Anwar's lawyers had earlier attacked Azizan's credibility, describing the witness as "the most unreliable witness" and that the alleged sodomy victim had been "consistently inconsistent".

Anwar is appealing against High Court judge Arifin Jaka's ( photo ) 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.

No proof Azizan lied

Abdul Gani also said the defence had no substantial proof to suggest that Azizan was not truthful when he contradicted himself o­n what he had told police of being sodomised in May 1994.

He said even if there was any inconsistency or contradiction, it was not material to the extent that it went to the root of the charges against Anwar and Sukma.

He added that since the offence had occurred about six years ago before the trial, discrepancies are "bound to happen".

He said Azizan may have given "a display of poor memory as regards to the exact date of the incident" but that did not mean that the witness was lying.

As to the defence's contention that Azizan had contradicted himself o­n whether he had told the police he was sodomised in 1992, Abdul Gani said he was just confused.

(Azizan first said he could not remember whether he had informed police of the offence, then said he did not tell police.)

He argued that it was natural for prosecution witness Azizan to make such discrepancies "after extensive and repeated questioning by the counsel".

"He (Azizan) gave his evidence with calmness but sometimes appeared to be rather confused and hesitant. This is because he was nervous but all these are o­nly to expected of a simple witness who is not well educated and trained in law," Abdul Gani said.

Witness of truth

He said the "minor discrepancies" actually negated the defence's contention that Azizan was fabricating evidence in relation to a political conspiracy against Anwar.

"If indeed Azizan was telling lies by fabricating evidence with the assistance of his so-called conspirators and if he had given his evidence based o­n a script having learnt it all by heart, then surely he would have cracked and all his lies will be apparent under the strain of examinations.

"Yet despite all these he had emerged unscathed. If Azizan were to tell o­ne lie he has to tell another 99 or maybe 999 lies to cover up the first."

As to the judge's remark that Azizan was evasive, Abdul Gani said it was "nothing unusual" as it was o­nly the judge's careful way of assessing the witness' demeanour while giving evidence in court.

"How many times do we see a judge noting the witness' demeanour? Not very often. Here he finds the witness to be evasive and later, upon looking at the evidence as a whole, he (the judge) discovered that the witness was just confused," said Abdul Gani.

The AG also submitted that Justice Arifin was right in holding that Azizan was a witness of truth because the witness "had nothing to gain but so much to lose".

He said Azizan's employment status from a driver to a marketing manager and later a company director did not show anything, adding that the defence failed to show any sort of association between the companies (which employed Azizan) and any of the alleged conspirators against Anwar.

No medical examination

He also submitted that the failure of the investigating officer SAC I Musa Hassan to refer Azizan to a medical examination, does not mean the court could infer the prosecution of any ill intention.

"SAC I Musa had testified that he applied his experience and relied o­n some medical books when he decided not to send Azizan for medical examination," said Abdul Gani, to sniggers from the public gallery.

He said since the offence occurred more than six years ago, there would not have been any medical trace to prove that Azizan was sodomised.

"If the medical evidence would not give any conclusive findings, it would have been of no use. It would be a useless evidence," he said.

He further argued that medical examination is not the o­nly method to prove penetration. The prosecution continues its submissions tomorrow.