Bar Council president, Christopher Leong said today reports by the mainstream media suggesting it accepted the Court of Appeal ruling against Anwar Ibrahim were wrong.

The opposition leader was convicted of sodomy on March 7.

 

Leong said the council's statement on Tuesday, had plainly stated it had no comment on the matter as the grounds for the reversal of the High Court's decision to acquit were still not available.

 

“No written substantive grounds for the decisions have been issued as yet, save to say, there appears to be doubt and reservations as to the integrity of the DNA evidence in the case,” he said.

 

“This means we make no comment at present on the merits of the decision or ruling. The issue of the council impliedly accepting any ruling therefore does not arise.

"We merely stated the fact that the Court of Appeal had convicted and sentenced Anwar for what was essentially an offence of consensual sex between adults,” he clarified further.

 

It was reported yesterday that Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Razali Ibrahim ( left ), opined that the Bar Council had indirectly accepted the Court of Appeal's ruling against Anwar.

He claimed the council's inference the verdict was unjustified as it criminalised a consensual sexual relationship between two persons, unwittingly affirmed the act of sodomy involving Anwar.

"The Bar Council has attested that Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan should have been charged together with Anwar. It questioned why Anwar was prosecuted, but Saiful goes unpunished," Razali told reporters in Muar yesterday.

 

‘Consensual or not?’

 

Leong further clarified that the council was merely explaining the nature of the alleged offence in its statement, as Anwar was charged under Section 377B, read with Section 377A that stipulates “whosoever voluntarily commits the acts...where this section simply means that it was 'consensual'.

 

“If it was not consensual or done by force, it is a charge under Section 377C which provides ‘whosoever voluntarily commits the act on another person without the consent or against the will of the other person...’ where Anwar ( right ) was not charged for.

 

“It has been reported that Saiful in his evidence alleged in effect that it was not by consent.

"It would thus be understandable if some members of the public questioned such inconsistency, or query as to why Anwar was not then charged under section 377C if it was without consent, or why Saiful was not charged under section 377B if it was by consent."

 

He added that Anwar has consistently maintained that the whole matter had been contrived.

 

Following this, Leong said the report attributed to the council contending an offence under Section 377A of the Penal Code was applicable if involved the use of threat of force, is therefore wrong.

 

In Tuesday's statement , the Bar Council had among other issues, questioned the appeal process which it described as troubling, and further quizzed its hurried nature.