‘No in­ter­fer­ence in court de­ci­sion’

> PM’s of­fice had no prior knowl­edge of case out­come: Lead pros­e­cu­tor

The Sun (Malaysia) - - NEWS WITHOUT BORDERS -

PUTRAJAYA: There was no in­ter­fer­ence by the Prime Min­is­ter’s Of­fice (PMO) in re­la­tion to the Fed­eral Court de­ci­sion to up­hold Datuk Seri An­war Ibrahim’s con­vic­tion and five-year jail sen­tence for sodomis­ing his for­mer aide, the Fed­eral Court was told.

The At­tor­ney-Gen­eral’s Cham­bers Tri­als and Ap­pel­late Divi­sion head Datuk Ah­mad Ka­mal Md Shahid, who is lead­ing the pros­e­cu­tion team, ar­gued that the PMO had no knowl­edge what­so­ever on the out­come of the Fed­eral Court de­ci­sion on Feb 10 last year.

Ah­mad Ka­mal said fur­ther­more, the Court was to­tally in­de­pen­dent of any other body in its de­ci­sion mak­ing. “All in­sin­u­a­tion and in­nu­en­dos that the PMO knew about the de­ci­sion be­fore­hand are wrong, base­less and ir­re­spon­si­ble. That is for­ti­fied by the fact that the ap­pli­cant (An­war) was ac­quit­ted in the High Court,” he said.

“In the af­fi­davit-in-re­ply af­firmed by Datuk Seri Tengku Shar­if­fud­din Tengku Ah­mad, who was the di­rec­tor of the me­dia divi­sion at the PMO, he ex­plained that it is also nor­mal prac­tice for the PMO to is­sue an im­me­di­ate re­sponse by way of me­dia state­ment on the mat­ter,” said Ah­mad Ka­mal.

Tengku Shar­if­fud­din had filed the af­fi­davit to re­ply to An­war’s af­fi­davit to sup­port his re­view ap­pli­ca­tion.

Ah­mad Ka­mal was sub­mit­ting at the hear­ing of An­war’s re­view ap­pli­ca­tion to set aside his sodomy con­vic­tion and five-year jail sen­tence for sodomis­ing Mohd Sai­ful Bukhari Azlan, 31.

The ap­peal is be­ing heard by a five-man panel led by Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Zulke­fli Ah­mad Mak­in­udin. The other panel mem­bers are Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Richard Malan­jum and Fed­eral Court judges Tan Sri Hasan Lah, Tan Sri Abu Samah Nordin and Tan Sri Za­harah Ibrahim.

Ah­mad Ka­mal stressed that it was nor­mal prac­tice for the PMO to pre­pare two sep­a­rate me­dia state­ments be­cause the de­ci­sion had to be ei­ther one of two pos­si­bil­i­ties, ac­quit­tal or con­vic­tion.

Ear­lier, re­tired Fed­eral Court judge Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram, who acted for An­war had ar­gued that the PMO’s state­ment which was is­sued 15 min­utes af­ter the de­ci­sion showed that there was a po­lit­i­cal con­spir­acy against his client and that the PMO had a spe­cial in­ter­est in the case.

The panel re­served its judge­ment on An­war’s re­view ap­pli­ca­tion to a date to be fixed later.

An­war, 69, had filed the re­view ap­pli­ca­tion seek­ing the Fed­eral Court to in­voke Rule 137 of the Rules of the Fed­eral Court 1995 and re­view the de­ci­sion of the panel. – Ber­nama

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Malaysia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.