(Pic by Sanja Gjenero / sxc.hu)
KUALA LUMPUR, 18 June 2009: A medical report by Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) has found no evidence of anal penetration of Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, raising real doubts about the credibility of his sodomy charge against Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
The findings of the report, disclosed by Anwar’s lawyers at a press conference in Parliament today, was attached to an affidavit filed by Anwar at the High Court yesterday to strike out the charge. The Opposition Leader, who is also Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR)’s adviser, also wants a court order to stay his sodomy trial, which has been set for 1 July.
Part of the report, made available to the media, held that: “No conclusive clinical findings suggestive of penetration to the anus and no significant defensive wound on the body of the patient (Saiful Bukhari)”.
“In any sexual offence case, the first thing to prove is penetration,” said Anwar’s lawyer, Amer Hamzah Arshad.
“From the evidence before us, there was no penetration,” Amer added.
The HKL report, dated 13 July 2008, was endorsed by three medical specialists, and corroborates the earlier findings of Hospital Pusrawi medical officer Dr Mohamed Osman Abdul Hamid.
Citing the “clear medical evidence”, PKR vice-president R Sivarasa said there was reason to believe that the charge against Anwar was mala fide, or made in bad faith.
Sivarasa “Why is this being brought to court?” Sivarasa said.
“This case, considering its circumstances, is a result of a political conspiracy, and clear evidence of abuse of the judicial process,” he said, adding that it was designed to destroy Anwar’s political career.
Saiful Bukhari, who worked as Anwar’s aide in PKR, lodged a police report accusing the opposition leader of sodomising him on 28 June 2008.
On 7 Aug 2008, Anwar was charged with sodomy under Section 377B of the Penal Code for committing “unnatural sex” with another, instead of Section 377C. Section 377C is used when someone commits “unnatural sex” on another against the other’s will or without his or her consent.
Subsequently, on 15 Aug 2008, Saiful Bukhari swore on the Quran in the Federal Territory Mosque in Kuala Lumpur that Anwar had forcefully sodomised him.
His swearing on the Quran, which was widely publicised in the media, was just before the 26 Aug 2008 Permatang Pauh by-election which Anwar was contesting. Anwar won the seat which led to his return to Parliament since his sacking from government in 1998. 
Kenny says
Since Saiful has sworn on the Quran that he was forcibly sodomised but Anwar was charged with consensual sodomy, how can the case proceed until the charge is reconciled with [the claim made by] the witness?
If the charge is not reconciled … will we have Saiful being a hostile witness to the prosecution who insists that it was consensual?
Nicholas Aw says
BN/Umno are aware that Anwar Ibrahim is a thorn in the flesh. For one, he was in the government and probably knows a lot of government “secrets”. Secondly, he is growing stronger by the day since coming out of prison [and] rising to become the opposition leader. The rakyat generally are behind him and believe that he has been framed. BN/Umno cannot afford [to have] this situation and would resort to any means to silence Anwar. Otherwise the former will meet their doom come GE 13.
That is why Umno is willing to have a unity talk with PAS. What Umno wants is to “force” PAS out of Pakatan Rakyat on the pretext of uniting the Malays as mentioned by the DPM. In fact, the opposition and also the rakyat have to be cautious of the actions of the ruling government as they will go all out, by hook or by crook, to ensure that they [regain the lost states] in the next general election.
Gopal Raj Kumar says
It is important to understand that a hospital of itself does not have the power or the capacity at law to make a ‘finding’ in respect of any evidence relating to any matter before courts.
A finding is a conclusion for a court or more specifically a judge or relevant officer sitting in a properly constituted court or tribunal to make on all of the evidence properly put before them.
Reference is made to an article published in the Malaysian Bar website in respect of the matter of the allegation of an act of rape in the form of sodomy by Anwar Ibrahim. That article must be read in context of the article by Zedeck Siew here as they are consubstantial.
The legislative provisions of the offense may describe the act in its own unique and novel way but it remains an allegation of rape by definition.
Perhaps what Anwar’s supporters are relying on in the Malaysian Bar and the article in The Nut Graph on the subject, is an opinion, from a source within the Hospital Kuala Lumpur (“HKLâ€) that the source or HKL failed to find any medical evidence or proof to corroborate a claim by the plaintiff that he had been sodomised.
“No conclusive clinical findings suggestive of penetration to the anus and no significant defensive wound on the body of the patient (Saiful Bukhari).” How such a statement can justify dismissing the allegation defies logic.
Such a statement is of itself contentious for the admission it makes in what must have been “defensive wounds” evident in the patient’s body (presumably his anus).
The fact that those wounds were “not significant†cannot therefore be construed as being evidence that penetration did not occur or that wounds consistent with penetration were not present. It merely qualifies the wounds as being “not significant”. And there is a clear distinction to be made here. Further the statement allegedly leaked from the report says the “findings” are “not conclusiveâ€
A question that needs to be asked and answered when testing the validity of the hospital’s report or the weight to be given it, based on the physical examination of the “patient” is this. How soon or how long after the alleged fact of sodomy did the hospital actually conduct a physical examination of the patient?
And depending on whether or not there was actual force (voluntary or consensual) used in the act there are a number of possible outcomes a physical examination would reveal.
These would then, depend on a number of other factors including
a) the time lapse between the occurrence of the event and the examination,
b) the nature and extent of force, resistance (voluntary or consensual) applied,
c) the physical and medical disposition of the patient, and
d) the capacity of the perpetrator’s penetration to inflict visible injury.
Interestingly none of these questions or possibilities are canvassed or dealt with by either the HKL or Anwar’s defence team.
Clearly results would vary from individual to individual in such circumstances and cannot be relied on to do anything but perhaps corroborate to some degree the claim and the defence.
Instead of a more profound report the defence relies on we are subject to conveniently leaked information, which adumbrates a situation based on generic definitions vague to the core which Anwar’s legal team appear to hang on to as their smoking gun in reverse.
The Bar Association website article on this subject further refers to Anwar seeking to take his case overseas. Taking his case overseas is likely to bring the courts into disrepute and question its authority and its legitimacy without proper cause (if he had one) which is more than a mere slap in the face of the courts of Malaysia.
Anwar for all of his rhetoric, his colourful courtship of foreign dignitaries, the media and the legal fraternity demonstrates a shallow sense of responsibility or statesmanship.
He is clearly ill advised or reckless as to the implications of his conduct in this regard more than anyone else in his camp.
If Anwar has no faith in the system or claims it is biased or unfair against him to the extent he is unable to secure for himself a fair and just trial in Malaysia, then there are procedures to accessing other forums. Perhaps he may even consider the international courts of justice at the Hague, although he is unlikely to be given a hearing there because he has not yet exhausted all municipal remedies in Malaysia.
Clearly Anwar is ill informed because he fails to inform himself of the implications of his actions or of how a fair and just system ought to work. His position as victim, a role he clearly revels in will eventually relegate him to the ranks of “also rans” in a nation at a watershed of politics where clear alternatives appear like him to be nothing more than mirages.
Michael Tan says
I sincerely hope the authorities, or the powers that be, concentrate on the pressing issues at hand. I know it’s a catch-22 situation. Nobody is giving anybody a chance. Perhaps, it’s like, either you or me. Either your gang or my gang. I believe that the public is crying out loud that we have to work together for the good of our children. Build and leave them a legacy for them to build on for their generation.
This kind of publicity is not good for our country’s image. Life is subject to change. It may be your day today and it may not be yours tomorrow, or the next minute. Time and tide waits for no man. We need a lot of catching up. Until today we still mull over education, we still talk about races. Everything seems ad hoc. Hangat2 tahi ayam. When are these going to end? It’s very sad. Our children, they are so innocent. Do you think they deserve such a legacy? To inherit the way as it is?
Sooner or later, the world would be colour/race blind. It may be the more powerful against the less powerful. So Malaysia is unique in that sense. We have good inbuilt traits, to be polite, respectful, sopan santun, and so on. There is so much there to share. Leaders, please be leaders. As it is, you guys are the ones with the torchlights. We just follow. God bless Malaysia.
richard says
I have spent many happy times in Malaysia on holiday and look at this whole situation from outside the box.
In my opinion there will always be unrest while the government proceeds with positive discrimination of Muslims.
Everyone has the right to their own religion, and none of determines where we were born or who our parents are.
People of Indian or Chinese descent who are born in Malaysia are just as much Malaysian as Malays who descend from the original people who lived there. They cannot claim Chinese or Indian citizenship as they were not born there, so why does the Malaysian Government continue with this positive discrimination against them?
In the end any dirty tricks e.g. the sodomy charges against Anwar Ibrahim will come back to bite them.