Jailed ex-deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim will face two decisions in the Court of Appeal tomorrow as to whether he would be allowed bail as well as if his sodomy conviction can be reviewed by the Court of Appeal.

Following today's lengthy arguments on whether the court has the jurisdiction to hear Anwar's unprecedented review application, Justice Pajan Singh Gill said that he will deliver a decision on the issue tomorrow afternoon.

"The bail decision will also be delivered at 3pm," said Pajan, who sat with Court of Appeal judges Richard Malanjum and Hashim Yusof.

If the court is to decide that it had no jurisdiction to hear the review, Anwar - who wants the court to reconsider its earlier decision rejecting his sodomy appeal - will have no choice but to bring his appeal straight to the Federal Court.

Anwar and co-accused Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja are seeking to overturn a High Court's sodomy conviction involving driver Azizan Abu Bakar who was the driver to the jailed politician's wife, Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail.

Alibi a crucial defence

Anwar's lawyer Karpal Singh earlier argued that the serious misdirection made by the Court of Appeal as shown in its written judgment warrants the court to re-open the appeal.

He said the judgment showed the court had failed to properly consider Anwar's notice of alibi which had been a crucial defence for the jailed politician.

He said although Anwar can take the issue to the Federal Court, that would mean that he would lose one valuable tier of appeal.

"If this court agrees that there is a misdirection on the part of the notice of alibi, it can dismiss its own decision without having to go to the Federal Court," he said.

He further submitted that the Court of Appeal has the jurisdiction to re-open an appeal that it had disposed off as stated in the Civil Law Act 1956 and the Court of Appeal Rules 1994.

He also said that the recent legal precedents set by the Federal Court has clearly shown that the court at the appellate level can review its own decision citing the case of veteran journalist MGG Pillai, whose application for a review was allowed by the highest court of the land.

He also cited a recent English case which states that the Court of Appeal can review its own decision to avoid real injustices which took place in exceptional cases.

"We submit that our case is indeed an exceptional case where real injustices had taken place. It is essential for a review be allowed in such cases, not only to ensure that the judiciary's integrity is preserved, but also to develop the law," he said.

Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail however argued that the court would be setting a dangerous precedent if Anwar's application is to be allowed, stating that there will never be a finality of the case.

"If the defence has the right of the review, then I too have the right to review the review," he said.

He said the court should only consider re-opening the case if it is convinced that Anwar would face difficulties in taking his appeal to a higher court.

"Is there a problem for the applicant to obtain leave to appeal to the Federal Court? Our answer is that there is none because leave is not needed for any criminal appeal. So he has a recourse still available to him," he said.

Judge has 'no recollection'

Meanwhile, the confusion over Anwar's notice of alibi continues as Court of Appeal interpreter Mohd Firdaus Abdul Mutalib filed an affidavit stating that copies of the notice was never submitted to the court.

The notice of alibi sought to show that Anwar was elsewhere when the sodomy offence was committed. The Court of Appeal's April 18 judgment dismissing Anwar's sodomy appeal had disputed that the alibi notice had been filed.

In response to Anwar's lawyers claims that copies of the notice had been submitted to the judges, Mohd Firdaus stated that the court records showed no indication that the Court of Appeal judges had been informed of the notice.

Yesterday, the three-member Court of Appeal panel dismissed Anwar's application requesting the court to release its notes of proceeding to back the jailed politician's claims.

According to Pajan, who has been recently promoted to the Federal Court, the notes of proceeding are "private and personal notes" of the judges, and there is nothing in the law that compels the Court of Appeal to supply its notes to parties appearing before the court.

Karpal said Mohd Firdaus' affidavit seemed to indicate that the court not only doubted the lawyers but also deputy public prosecutor Abdul Majid Hamzah, who had earlier stated that the prosecution had informed the judges of the alibi notice.

"It seemed to suggest that what I had said to this court is untrue thus casting aspersions to our integrity. Is Your Lordship denying that you had been informed of the matter?" asked Karpal.

Pajan replied: "We have no recollection of it."