The Federal Court today said it would announce its decision on the sodomy appeal by jailed ex-deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim 'as soon as possible' as defence lawyers wrapped up their submissions.

"We promise you that we will sit down immediately to work uninterruptedly on this case, and we promise to give our judgment as soon as possible," said the head of the three-member bench, justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad.

However, he did not set a date for the court to deliver the all-important decision on the crucial appeal.

Abdul Hamid, who is sitting with two other judges - Rahmah Hussein and Tengku Baharudin Shah Tengku Mahmud - also announced that the court will begin to hear Anwar's bail application tomorrow.

The bail application in the Federal Court - the country's highest court - is Anwar's last bid for freedom pending his appeals as bail has been twice rejected by the lower courts.

Earlier, justice Abdul Hamid dismissed senior counsel Karpal Singh's request for the court to deliver its judgment today.

Karpal said that the defence's argument on the alibi notice alone was reason enough for the court to acquit and discharge Anwar and co-appellant Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja ( pix ).

However Abdul Hamid said: "We have all these volumes (of notes of proceedings and submissions) to consider. If we don't read that, it would not be fair".

Anwar is appealing against the nine-year jail sentence imposed by the High Court in August 2000 after the politician was found guilty of sodomising Azizan Abu Bakar, the former driver of his wife Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail.

Anwar's adopted brother Sukma, who was jailed six years and ordered to be whipped four times for abetting Anwar, is also appealing. Their convictions and sentences had been upheld by the Court of Appeal.

If the Federal Court appeal fails, Anwar will remain in jail until 2014. However, he could be out by 2009 given the standard two-third remission for good behaviour - while Sukma will also face the whipping penalty.

Without fear or favour

In his submission earlier today, Karpal urged the court to consider the appeal without fear or favour.

"The time has come for the court to show that it is capable of deciding by law and nothing else. The appeal ought to be allowed without undue delay," he said.

He said the judiciary's past conduct in handling the Anwar trials had only worsened the public perception of the courts, which had yet to be given the respect it truly deserved.

The lawyer also reiterated his argument that Anwar had been denied a proper alibi defence by the trial judge Arifin Jaka, who had dismissed the defence's application to file a fresh alibi notice after the sodomy charge was amended for the second time at the High Court.

"It is substantive requirement for the court to allow the defence to file the alibi notice and failure to adhere to that had rendered all our alibi evidence inadmissable," said Karpal.

The notice of alibi sought to show that Anwar was elsewhere when the sodomy offence was committed.

Karpal also urged the court to take note on the prosecution's conduct in relation to the defence's alibi evidence.

"First the prosecution said they were prepared to investigate our alibi evidence but later the (then) attorney-general (the late Mohtar Abdullah) changed his mind. Is it because of political consideration for a conviction at all cost that led to the change of heart? This must be considered by the court," said the lawyer.

Prosecutors 'fabricate evidence

'

In the morning session, lead counsel Christopher Fernando urged the court to consider directing an independent inquiry to be set up to look at the role played by the attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail and one of his senior officers in procuring false evidence against Anwar.

He said the inquiry was necessary to investigate Abdul Gani and Azahar Mohamed - both senior prosecutors in Anwar's trials - for their alleged role in the conspiracy to jail the former deputy prime minister as alleged by defence witness, lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon.

He described the acts of the two prosecutors to extort fabricated evidence from Manjeet's client S Nallakaruppan - who was Anwar's tennis partner - as "appalling and despicable".

"The main issue here is perversion of justice, abuse of power, abuse of trust and total disregard of the rule of law. The lower courts failed to appreciate the principle involved in respect of Manjeet's evidence - that a fundamental pre-requisite to a fair trial is a fair prosecutor."

He also said that the appellate court had erroneously reasoned that because the allegations against the two prosecutors was a demand for evidence regarding Anwar's sexual misconduct with women, it had no relevance to the present sodomy charge.

"They (the lower courts) failed to appreciate that what was at issue was not an isolated instance of fabrication but the overall motives of the prosecutors in furthering their cause against the first appellant (Anwar)."

He said the lower courts failed to consider that the misconduct of the prosecutors only strengthen the likelihood that offers have also been made to other persons to give false testimony.

Political conspiracy

Fernando further alleged that the lower courts had dealt with his clients' political conspiracy defence wrongly.

"Both the trial judge and the Court of Appeals spoke of the issue of conspiracy and fabrication in terms of being substantive defences requiring some obligation of proof on the part of the defence," he said.

"There was no obligation on the defence to prove any of these things. Having brought testimony from witnesses like Manjeet to these issues, it was incumbent on the prosecution to rebut these allegations beyond a reasonable doubt."

Hearing continues tomorrow.