The Federal Court today dismissed former opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim's application to call former Commercial Crime Investigation Department (CCID) director Ramli Yusof to testify in his review of the Sodomy II conviction and sentence.

Chief judge of Malaya justice Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin in the unanimous decision, said calling Ramli is not within the scope of Rule 137 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, where the application to adduce further evidence is to be made during proceedings and not review.

He also ruled that it did not pass the threshold outlined in Section 93 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA).

The other judges on the bench were chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak, Justice Richard Malanjum and Federal Court judges Hasan Lah, Abu Samah Nordin and Zaharah Ibrahim.

The court also ruled that Ramli's evidence, given at a separate civil trial, was not relevant to the case.

Anwar had maintained that his first sodomy and sodomy II charge was a political conspiracy, and sought to adduce further additional evidence to show a system consistent with an intention to frame the applicant.

“It is our considered view that the scope and application of rule 137 of the Rules of Federal Court are well settled. Rule 137 is a declaratory provision that must be strictly confined to procedural matters only.

“Rule 137 gives the Federal Court the limited “inherent power” or “inherent jurisdiction” to hear any application or to make any order to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the court process, it does not confer upon the Federal Court a statutory jurisdiction or a new jurisdiction to hear any application to review its own decision.”

Justice Zulkefli said they viewed Rule 137 should not be exercised liberally.

“It is only applicable in very exceptional cases where significant injustice had occurred. It is our finding that the Anwar's application for admission of additional evidence does not fall within any of the exceptional circumstances, to justify us to exercise our inherent jurisdiction under the said rule.

“Further, it is our judgment that the Anwar's application is unsustainable as section 93 of the CJA 1964 is only designed for the inclusion of additional evidence in an appeal before this court and not with regard to an application for the exercise of the inherent power of the court to hear the application under Rule 137,” he said.

“We are of the view that the procedure for admission of additional evidence under Section 93 of CJA 1964 is only applicable specifically under the jurisdiction of the Appellate court by means of rehearing but not through a reviewing process. Hence we dismiss the application,” he said in his ruling.

Black-eye incident

Ramli was the former CID deputy director in 1998 at the height of the Sodomy I incident and was a witness in the black-eye incident.

In fact, Ramli pulled then Inspector-General of Police Abdul Rahim Noor, who was implicated in assaulting Anwar.

However, Ramli had in a civil trial last year alleged that former IGP Musa Hassan, who was the investigating officer in the sodomy I case, told him that the late AG Mohtar Abdullah and Abdul Gani Patail, had asked him to lodge a police report claiming Anwar faked the black eye injury.

Justice Zulkefli also said based on the records of proceeding before the trial judge of the High Court and before the Court of Appeal and Federal Court, the applicant was given a fair trial and hearing.

He said at the conclusion of the trial the High Court judge had acquitted and discharged Anwar.

“It is our finding that in the present case, there was no involvement of the parties alleged to have conspired to fabricate the evidence as to what had allegedly taken place in the black-eye incident,” the number three judge in the country said.

Evidence sought available then

Justice Zulkefli said the evidence that is sought to be admitted on fabrication of evidence was therefore available throughout the hearing of the appeal of the applicant's case at the Federal Court which ended on Nov 7, through former Kuala Lumpur CID chief, Mat Zain Ibrahim.

“We are also of the view that the evidence of Ramli that Anwar applies to be taken to this court is irrelevant to the issues raised. There is no nexus between the testimony of Ramli and the defence of the applicant for his case.

“We find nothing in the testimony of Ramli that would disclose any evidence in relation to Anwar's defence of political conspiracy,” he said.

The Chief Judge of Malaya also said Anwar had failed to comply with the statutory requirement of Rule 76 of the Rules of Federal Court rendering Anwar's affidavit amounting to hearsay as it attempted to establish the truth of the contents of the witness statement (of Ramli) without the maker, Ramli, being examined on the subject matter.

“We are of the view the evidence of Ramli that is sought to be adduced by Anwar is insignificant evidence. We do not think that such might cast a reasonable doubt in the mind of the judges as to Anwar's guilt if that evidence had been given together with the other evidence at the trial,” he said.

Lawyers Gopal Sri Ram, Sivarasa Rasiah, Latheefa Koya, Shahid Adli Kamaruddin appeared for Anwar. Prosecution was led by Tengku Amir Zaki Tengku Abdul Rahman.

Following this, the court proceeded to deliberate on the dates for the review hearing. After meeting the Federal Court registrar, they fixed the hearing of the review on July 21.

Sivarasa after the decision expressed disappointment as he felt that the evidence was not there previously as Ramli only testified at a civil trial last year.

“Nevertheless, we have to face the review,” he said.