The Federal Court was today urged to weigh carefully whether former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim was accorded due justice during his appeals against his sodomy conviction to the lower courts as events which had occurred during that duration proved otherwise.

Senior counsel for Anwar, submitting at his final appeal hearing, said that a number of 'weird and bizarre' events had occurred during Anwar's trials and appeals which suggested that the jailed politician had been denied justice at the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

"He was a victim of vicious assault that not only gave him a black eye but also a black eye to the whole country as far as justice is concerned," said Karpal Singh.

"Let me assure you that the pain suffered by the appellant (Anwar) is not a facade. He is not wearing the neck and waist braces to put on a showcase. The pain and injustice are very real."

Karpal was submitting at the appeal of Anwar who was found guilty of of sodomising Azizan Abu Bakar - Anwar's wife driver - by the Kuala Lumpur High Court on Aug 8, 2000 and sentenced to nine years' jail.

Apart from the appeal against the conviction's jail sentence, the three-man Federal Court bench will also hear Anwar's application for bail.

A similar appeal and bail application by Anwar's co-accused and adopted brother, Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja, will also be heard by the judges. Sukma was sentenced to six years jail and four strokes of the rotan (cane) for abetting Anwar.

In the event the duo fail to set aside their convictions, Anwar will only be freed in 2009 while Sukma would have to undergo the execution of his whipping sentence.

Alibi

notice

Karpal also alleged that the Court of Appeal had 'serious flaws' in its judgment dismissing Anwar's appeal against his conviction and sentence.

He said that it (the Court of Appeal) had not only ignored an alibi notice given by Anwar but had also failed to take into account the fact that he had been prevented from presenting a new alibi notice upon an amendment to the sodomy charge.

The original charge stated that Anwar sodomised Azizan Abu Bakar one night in May 1994.

However, it was later changed to one night in September 1992 after prosecutors realised that the newly built condominium where the alleged event took place was not ready for occupation at that time.

The date was again change for the second time to "sometime between January and March 1993."

"We sent an alibi notice in respect to the May 1992 charge (before it was amended to 1993) but this was not only denied by the High Court but also by the Court of Appeal and the prosecution," said Karpal.

"Only today, did the prosecution concede that we had duly served the alibi notice in respect of the May 1992 charge."

He claimed that the prosecution had 'acted in bad faith' when they repeatedly denied that the defence had submitted the alibi notice.

"But when the charge was amended, the defence's request for a postponement to file a fresh alibi notice (for the amended charge) was rejected by the High Court," he said, adding the judge had erred in holding that the earlier alibi notice was adequate.

"This is absurd as what happened in 1992 cannot be relevant in 1993," he said.

"We therefore submit that Anwar's trial is a nullity because the Criminal Procedure Code clearly gives the defence a substantive right to file an alibi notice 10 days before a trial begins."

The defence counsel said the notice of alibi was crucial to the case as it sought to show that Anwar was elsewhere when the sodomy offence was committed.

Bail hearing later

Earlier, the court rejected Karpal's request to start submitting on Anwar's bail application today.

Justice Abdul Hamid Mohamed directed him to present the bail application arguments after submissions on the sodomy appeal conviction had been completed.

"Since you have already started your submissions on the appeal proper halfway, you might as well complete them before you start on a another issue," said Abdul Hamid.

"If you start your arguments on the bail application, it will only confuse the court."

The prosecution had also objected to the request for the bail application submissions to be heard today stating that the defence had indicated that the applications would only be heard after the appeal proper submissions.

'Almighty God'

The court also turned down at the start of hearing a request by ex-deputy premier that the presence of international observers at his appeal hearing be recorded, pointing out to him that 'Almighty God is observing'.

In rejecting the request, Abdul Hamid said: "We treat everybody equally whether they are local or foreign. Both are welcome to observe the appeal. After all, this is what an open court is all about."

"Although the court did not record their presence, the court is aware that its conduct is being observed. We are aware that we are being watched by the public. We also know we have another observer, which is God Almighty," he added.

When Anwar's leading counsel Christopher Fernando insisted that the court record the presence of foreign observers, Abdul Hamid replied: "Even if the prime minister had come here to observe the appeal, the court would have made the same decision."

International observers present at the hearing today were Marzuki Darusman from the International Parliamentary Union, Desmond Fernando from the International Bar Association and Mark Trowell representing both the Australian Bar Association and the International Commission of Jurists.

Hearing continues tomorrow.