The decision of conviction and sentence imposed on Anwar Ibrahim, the former Deputy Prime Minister and Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja, the adopted brother of Anwar Ibraham, are viewed by many members of the Bar and many members of the public with great dismay in view of the irregularities that occurred at the trial and the evidence that was adduced at the trial as reported.
Several aspects of witnesses' evidence have caused great concern with regard to the conviction. It has been reported that Azizan Abu Bakar, the complainant, was not able to explain the changes in the dates on which the sodomy was alleged to have been committed. Initially the charge stated that the alleged offence took place some time in 1994 which was then amended to 1992 and later amended to some time between January and March, 1993. The offence by its very nature is one which depends entirely on the direct evidence of the complainant himself.
The unsatisfactory evidence of Azizan Abu Bakar as to the date of the commission of the alleged offence, raises doubts as to whether the alleged offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. This is just one aspect of many others which raises severe doubts as to the commission of the alleged offence. The sentence of nine (9) years imprisonment imposed by the Court on Anwar Ibrahim to run consecutively with the earlier sentence of 6 years imprisonment is manifestly excessive and harsh. The sentence of 6 years and four (4) strokes of the rotan for the alleged offences committed by Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja is also manifestly excessive and harsh.
The trial has been closely followed, locally and internationally and the decision, although delivered only yesterday has already been adversely commented upon by a number of groups concerned with the question of judicial independence. Looked at objectively the criticisms levelled against the way the trial was conducted and the decision itself merit consideration. They cannot, as is our habit, be dismissed off–hand as having been made by foreigners or persons having ulterior motives. If we are to ever begin to put things right again, we must either answer these accusations rationally or take necessary remedial steps.
An independent Judiciary is essential to a working democracy. Without it, confidence in the Government itself is undermined. At a time when globalisation is to be the by–word for economic development and national well–being, it is not the verdict of the High Court in the sodomy trial that counts as much as how sound it is having regard to the facts.
The Bar Council has in the past attempted to discuss issues pertaining to the independence of the Judiciary but has on two (2) occasions been stopped from doing so by Orders of the Court.
The recent statement made in the Court of Appeal that the conduct of Judges and of the Judiciary cannot be discussed publicly except in Parliament only makes Judges no longer accountable to the public.
The Bar Council calls on the Government to deal with the question of the independence of the Judiciary as a matter of urgency.
Dated this 9th day of August, 2000
ROY RAJASINGHAM
VICE–PRESIDENT
MALAYSIAN BAR
Change Password
Search the site
Member Login
Anwar Ibrahim and Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja
9 Aug 2000 12:00 am