In his final submission today, prosecution head solicitor general II Yusof Zainal Abidin said not only was the statement not weighted the same as the one made under oath, Anwar's statement was a “bare denial”.

The only reference made to the charge, he said, was when Anwar categorically denied having sexual relations with complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

“It is important to note that the accused did not give his own version of the event which occurred on June 26, 2008, between 3.01pm and 4.01pm at Unit 11-4-11, Desa Damansara Condominium, the place where the incident took place,” he said.

He added the fact that Anwar made no dispute of his presence at the condominium at the material time and that he had indeed received an envelope of documents from the complainant “would surely constitute evidence against him”.

NONE Yusof (left) said Anwar also did not make mention of his physical ailments which could have hampered him from performing the sex act he is accused of.

“No weight ought to be attached to his defence of bare denial,” he said.

Citing case law, Yusof said the judge “may draw appropriate inference with regards to the refusal or reluctance of the accused to give evidence on oath and to subject  himself  to cross-examination”.  

Speaking to reporters after the proceedings, Anwar said he had opted to give a statement from the dock as he wanted to “question the system” and to draw light to a “corrupt political system”.

He added that he had indeed adduced evidence to support his denial, albeit through the testimony of experts.

'Evidence merely corroborative'

In his submission, Yusof also ripped through the evidence given by three expert witnesses called by the defence - Anwar's oethopedic surgeon Dr Thomas Hoogland and forensic experts Dr David Wells and Dr Brian McDonald.

Hoogland's evidence that Anwar was “unlikely” to have performed the sex act on account of his back was deemed “speculative” as the doctor had not inspected him since 2005.

“The evidence of (Hoogland), taken at its highest is merely corroborative... (Hoogland) did not even examine the accused in the year 2008, as opposed to (Hospital  Kuala Lumpur physician) Dr Jeyaindran who examined the accused just three weeks after the incident,” he said.

He submitted that Jeyaindran testified that Anwar's movements was not laboured in pain nor did the accused complain of back pain.

NONE The accused, he said, had also delayed cortisone injections prescribed by Hoogland (right) in September 2011 after an examination as he was too busy, indicating that he “was not troubled” by the pain.

While Wells' evidence was submitted to be “neutral at best”, McDonald's credibility was severely attacked with Yusof calling his evidence “flip flop”.

“McDonald raised all sorts of allegations, made misleading remarks, gave impression he was misunderstood and tried to paint a derogatory picture of the Chemist Department that it was not properly accredited.

“However, what is important in the present case is that Dr McDonald had not made good his challenge to the prosecution case,” he said.

The defence will reply to the prosecution's submission on Dec 15, after which Justice Mohamad Abidin Mohd Diah is expected to set a date for his decision.

Related stories

Defence witnesses 'not credible', says prosecution

No evidence Anwar's DNA was planted, court told