Enough evidence was adduced to show that the confession made by Indonesian-born Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja on jailed ex-deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim's sexual misdemenour was a mere fabrication, the Federal Court heard today.

Sukma's counsel Gobind Singh Deo said the defence had presented evidence to show the police had subjected Sukma to a humiliating arrest and later oppressive continuos interrogation before the confession was finally extracted from the businessman.

He said in the trial-within-a trial to determine the legality of the confession, the defence had consistently showed that Sukma ( left ) could not have given the confession voluntarily if not for the abusive condition he was subjected to.

"He was arrested and handcuffed in public at a shopping complex where he was working. He was further taken to his house where his door was forced open and his house ransacked. He was later detained in a damp, dirty and smelly lock-up. He was also interrogated in a humiliating manner until he broke down and agreed to sign a confession," said Gobind.

"Despite all these evidence, the trial judge at the High Court had failed to direct his mind to the impact of the detention and the manner of police interrogation, on Sukma's state of mind."

The lawyer was submitting on Anwar and Sukma's final bid to set aside the decisions made by High Court judge Ariffin Jaka (now a Court of Appeal judge) who found them guilty of sodomy-related offences.

Anwar was jailed nine years for sodomising Azizan Abu Bakar, who was his wife Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail's driver while Sukma, who is Anwar's adopted brother, was sentenced to six years' jail and ordered to be whipped four times for abetting Anwar.

The conviction and sentence were later upheld by the Court of Appeal.

If their appeals fail, Anwar will remain in jail until 2014 - although he could be out by 2009 given the standard two-third remission for good behaviour - while Sukma will face whipping.

The appeal is being heard by a three-member Federal Court panel - Abdul Hamid Mohamad, Rahmah Hussein and Tengku Baharudin Shah Tengku Mahmud.

Where trial judge erred

In his submissions, Gobind alleged that Arifin ( left ) failed to consider the overall effect of the oppressive

circumstances in which Sukma made the statement and did not ask himself why the confession was made only after 12 days of interrogation and not earlier.

"The learned judge did not give proper weight to the fact that a police witness during the trial-within-a- trial had actually agreed that despite interrogation over a period of 12 days, they were only satisfied with Sukma's statement on the last day," he said.

He said the police had admitted that they had 'intervened' while Sukma was making the confession for the purpose of adding information to the confession.

"Based on these evidence, the judge ought to have ruled that the confession was nothing but mere fabrication. He (Sukma) was telling the police what they (the police) wanted him to say," Gobind stressed..

He further submitted that the Court of Appeal had seriously misdirected themselves when it failed to hold that Ariffin's inadequate consideration towards the fabrication was fatal towards his (Arifin's) decision to admit the confession.

Gobind's submission ended the defence case at this stage and the court will resume on Wednesday for the prosecution to reply.

Justice Abdul Hamid reminded counsel that they have until the end of this month to complete their arguments in the appeal.

"We want to hear everything by this month. We have committed ourselves to hear this appeal only and we hope counsel will finish by that time," said Abdul Hamid.

"Although we have been scheduled to hear other appeals but we have been excused... because we don't want our mind to run all over the place while hearing this appeal," he added.