Azizan Abu Bakar, the star witness in the sodomy trial involving former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim, was a reliable and truthful witness, said High Court judge Arifin Jaka in his written judgment which was delivered today.

"I have dealt with the issue of Azizan's credibility in depth and my finding that he is a truthful and credible witness still stands as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar," said Arifin ( photo ) in his 212-page judgment.

Today's written judgment came 10 months after Ariffin delivered his controversial oral verdict on Aug 8 last year.

The prosecution had relied on the evidence of Azizan, who was the former driver of Anwar's wife Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, to show that Anwar and his adopted brother Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja were involved in acts of sodomy.

During the trial, Azizan gave graphic details of the alleged liaisons between Anwar and Sukma, adding that he was forcefully violated sexually by both of them.

Last August, Arifin had found Anwar and Sukma to be guilty of sodomy and sentenced Anwar to nine years jail and Sukma to six years jail and two strokes of rotan.

In his judgment today, Arifin referred to the defence's submission that Azizan had contradicted himself during the trial when he said at one point that he was sodomised by Anwar and at another point that he was not, and that Azizan had not explained the contradiction.

Another contradiction which the defence found in Azizan's testimony was the different dates which the former driver said the alleged offences took place.

Paid money

To this, Arifin said that he found there to be no contradiction between what Azizan had said in regards to the act of sodomy.

"Even assuming that there is a material contradiction, I am more than satisfied that Azizan had successfully explained the contradiction," added Arifin.

The judge also said that the defence had relied on a testimony of a defence witness, ASP Zull Aznam Haron, who had said that Azizan told him that he (Azizan) was paid money to make the allegations against Anwar.

Zull Aznam was Anwar's aide-de-camp (ADC) from 1997 to 1998.

"However, I am inclined to believe that this conversation never took place and I am convinced that Azizan never told the witness about it."

"The alleged conversation under the circumstances is the brainchild of the witness to suit the defence," added Arifin.

Arifin said that despite various objections and "arguments without any merit" by the defence on the credibility of Azizan, he still "finds that Azizan's credibility remains intact".

"I am of the firm view that Azizan was speaking the truth ... he had nothing to gain whatsoever but stood to lose everything if his evidence was not true. Further, one cannot conceive that one would fabricate a serious charge of sodomy against one who was both the finance minister and deputy prime minister," said Arifin.

Arifin also said that he found Sukma' confession to the police that he and Anwar sodomised Azizan to be the truth, despite Sukma claiming at the trial that he was forced to confess.

He also added that by case-laws, Sukma's confession can be used against Anwar to show that he, too, had participated in the act.

'Absurd and incredible'

Arifin also said that based on Azizan's evidence, it was established that Azizan was sodomised by Anwar and Sukma, thus refuting the defence contention that the charges against Anwar and Sukma were false and fabricated.

"I am also satisfied that on the evidence, both the accused committed the act of carnal intercourse against the order of nature voluntarily. There is no contrary evidence to show they were forced to commit the offence," he said.

On Anwar's defence that he was elsewhere during the time the alleged offences were said to have happened, Arifin said the defence of alibi failed to raise a reasonable doubt as it did not cover the entire duration which Anwar was alleged to have committed the offences, that being between January and March 1993.

"The alibi covered the period only from Feb 4 to March 31, 1993 and is therefore incomplete," said Arifin.

The judge also dismissed Anwar's claims that there was a high-level conspiracy to topple him by procuring and using fabricated evidence.

Arifin said that on the evidence adduced by defence witnesses on the conspiracy theory, he was satisfied that this defence was not substantiated.

He said that the witnesses' narrations on the theory were "fertile imagination", "suspect", "worthless" and "hearsay".

Arifin also said that the evidence of former director-general of the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) Shafee Yahaya showing the existence of bad blood between Anwar and Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad was "merely to create an adverse impression on the PM that he had interfered with the work of the ACA".

Shafee had testified that Mahathir had "scolded" him for raiding the office of the head of the Economic Planning Unit.

"I am of the view that it is absurd and incredible that the PM scolded Shafee for the raid and asked him to close the case," said Arifin in his judgment.

Arrogant attitude

Arifin added that the defence had failed to create any reasonable doubt and that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Arifin also commented on Anwar's behaviour in addressing his mitigation, stating that he had used the opportunity to make a political speech to highlight his grievances and dissatisfaction with Mahathir and also attack the judiciary.

"He displayed an attitude of arrogance and disrespect to the bench and levelling against his former colleagues and political allies allegations of corruption and malpractices which are not relevant to the issues before the court," said the judge.

Arifin also said that Anwar had tarnished the image of those people in the eyes of the public at a forum where those people had no opportunity to defend themselves.

On imposing consecutive sentencing on Anwar, who is also serving a six-year jail term for abuse of power, Arifin said that the two offences were distinctly different and a concurrent sentencing would not reflect the seriousness of the sodomy offence.

Anwar is appealing against both sentences.