jump to navigation

Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 12.5.2010 May 13, 2010

Posted by malaysianstory in Anwar Ibrahim, Karpal Singh, Malaysian Story, Sodomy II, Transformation in PKR.
trackback

Mahkamah Tinggi J3

Full Transcript in English After  ++++++++++++
Dihadapan Yang Arif Dato’ Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah
Pihak-pihak: seperti terdahulu (dengan kehadiran Raymond Leong (untuk Majlis Peguam)
[09:15 am]
MY:     Ditetapkan untuk keputusan berkaitan permohonan pernyataan S.112 CPC
YA:     I’ve received KS authorities. Ini keputusan saya.
KS minta pernyataan SP1 termasuk pernyataan s.112 CPC. Permohonan PB dibuat semasa SP1 sedang disoal balas. Permohonan dibuat berdasarkan perbezaan keterangan SP1 dan pertuduhan di Mahkamah. KS mempunyai gerak hati ataupun hunch. KS rujuk kpd P3, iaitu laporan polis SP1 menyatakan perbuatan berlaku tanpa kerelaan sedangkan pertuduhan s.377B adalah dengan kerelaan dan bukan s.377C, S. 377B tidak libatkan kerelaan. KS menyatakan ada sebab mengesyaki tidak ada kerelaan, maka PB patut dibekalkan dengan pernyataan SP1. KS rujuk kes Husdi sebagai authority.
MY telah membantah atas alasan s.155 tidak termasuk percanggahan keterangan dengan pertuduhan, kerana adalah menjadi budibicara PP untuk menentukan pertuduhan yang mempunyai hukuman yang lebih rendah, ini tidak boleh dijadikan asas untuk gerak hati / hunch. Tidak boleh dinafikan PP ada budibicara untuk pilih pertuduhan. Saya setuju walaupun pertuduhan s.377B dan ini sahaja tidak boleh menjadi gerak hati untuk statement SP1 dibekalkan pada PB di bwh s.145 atau s.155.
Rujuk Dato’ Mokhtar [read]
Setakat ini keterangan SP1 bahawa kejadian berlaku tanpa rela, maka yidak ada percanggahan setakat ini, hanya kerana PP memilih untuk menuduh s.377B tidak boleh menjadi asas. Kes Husdi sendiri tidak membenarkan pernyataan saksi diberi pada PB walaupun untuk s.155. Dengan ini permohonan ditolak.

KS:     My instruction is to appeal.
YA:     KS diarahkan untuk merayu terhadap keputusan.
KS:     There is legal provision for us to take up this matter as this is a noble issue. What is important is s.15 Courts of Judicature Act 1964 [read]. S.3 Courts of Judicature Act 1964 [read]. Now the issue is whether YA decision is interlocutory?
Refer to Tag 4, page 7, PO in that case – what is a final order? Refer to the amendment of the words ‘decision’ of s.3 Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
The Federal Court ruling on that matter is what is final order even if made within the trial is appealable, it must be finally disposed the right of the parties. If YA decided not in our favour, coz we want the supply of PW1 statement, our position would be that the statement is for the purpose of impeachment.
S.377B and S.377C is not in term of enhancement of sentence. YA agreed with MY. But it is two distinct offences, one is consensual anal intercourse and the other is non-consensual. PW1 is the star W of the PP, the effect of impeachment that his entire testimony would fall. Unlike Singapore, the Court still can accept some and reject some.
YA:     The gist of your submission that my decision is final?
KS:     Yes, I’m saying that if PW1 testimony is impeached, once the credibility of W, his entire testimony must fall [read].
Refer to PP v Munusamy
If our application is successful then PW1 will be impeached and all his testimony will fall. It is final order, despite what is arising in this proceeding, on the Federal Court in DSAI case. AI have all the right to appeal.
MY will not object to that, the PP would not want to tender any evidence, if the PW1 testimony was impeached, his testimony would be stardust, nothing remain. What is there to proceed? Whether this Court still want to proceed if Notice Of Appeal has been filed? Will this Court allow a stay of proceeding as this matter determine by the Court of Appeal? The next date is one week before the Parliament seating. From now till the end of the month to determine this issue. We have more than 2 weeks. I pray for YA to consider a stay.

MY:     I will not reply for the last part because it is irrelevant. With regard for the stay, If I may say something, this application by KS assumed will successful, which render SP1 evidence will be impeach, is a presumption. But the effect of YA ruling is, if KS said that it should happen, the proper procedure would be s.167 EA. Refer to our bundle at Tag 7 (provision EA).
Refer to Tag 10, s.167 EA is always be read with all the authorities which also discuss about s.422 CPC.
Read tag 10. Case Juraimi Hussain’s case, page 152 referred [Tag 10]
This evidence of PW1 is improperly admitted, only then…[] []
Refer to case Tag 4 and Tag 5 –
KS may want to say, there is one instance, where we agreed to a stay, when there was an application to disqualified YA, that is the only instance where the Court should stay.

KS:     MY come prepared with an authorities.

MY:     Yesterday KS asked an adjournment to prepare for a full submission. I don’t know what KS would say, so I anticipate. You cannot say that I already know.
Since I wouldn’t know obviously I have to anticipate it. I have to come prepared. Unfortunately KS come unprepared.

KS:    MY come prepared.

MY:     I said that I will supply [][], when KS come [][] must be anticipate. No guessing, thank God, I’m right.

KS:     He said that he come prepared and I’m not. They come prepared and they conspired with YA.

MY:     I just anticipate if the ruling is against me..

YA:     In this court of mine, there is something called “a contempt proceeding”. Stand down.
[09:45 am]

[09:57 am]
Pihak-pihak yang sama.
MY:     Kes untuk ruling
KS:     As I said earlier MY come prepared for the stay. I need time, I’m not prepared. We’re not saying anything that amounting to contempt. All I want is time to reply. Just give me ½ an hour or 1 hr.

YA:     Granted 1 hr.
[10:00 am]

[11:05 am]
Pihak-pihak seperti terdahulu
JB:     Kes dipanggil semula

KS:     The authority in regard for a stay [refer to a loose copy of a case]. We want to show to this Court there is a special circumstances and why the application for stay should be granted.
Refer to para.23,page 269, it is a civil case but applicable to criminal. [Read]
What Federal Court ordered [in that case] there must be a special circumstances that we must dispose in the affidavit and not from bar table, and MY will get the opportunity to reply the affidavit in support and affidavit in reply. I’m not playing with time here. The circumstances must be disposed in an affidavit. I’m not going to s.422 at this stage or even s.167. There could be a serious misdirection.

YA:     What are you asking now?
KS:     To file in an affidavit and Notice of Appeal.

YA:     I take your word that there will be a Notice of Appeal.

KS:     The Notice will be file in this afternoon, there must affidavit that includes special circumstances, only then we will submit on the law. That’s how it ought to be done. They’re relying on Kosma’s case.
I will prepare the affidavit this afternoon so that MY can reply, then YA can make a ruling tomorrow morning, if the ruling is against us, we’re ready with the cross. We’re not playing with time. I’m applying for a time to prepare the affidavit and Notice of Appeal.

MY:     YA, I agreed with KS that the special circumstances must be dispose in an affidavit. But that is not the real issue; the issue is if whether an appeal operates a stay of proceeding?
Only KS can show by the affidavit if there is a special circumstances, but do we stay the proceeding until the Notice file in? I think until then, the trial should proceed. I remember during the lower court, for this case to be transferred, we prepared the affidavit during lunch and ready to proceed with the trial. The proceeding must go on as usual []

KS:    We need time to file the Notice. What they’re concern if the [][], if MY insist, we’re prepared to go on with the trial. That is not the point, why rush thing? But we will be unable to prepare the application for stay, the affidavit, all these take time. We have made an oral application, I [][]
MY can be cited for contempt if go against the Federal Court decision, even YA. But not I.

YA:     Stand down
[11:15 am]

[11:22 am]
JB: Kes dipanggil semula

YA:     I agreed until and unless Notice and affidavit is file, the question of stay does not arise. Please continue with the trial.

KS:     I have no problem to go on, call SP1

SP1 bersumpah semula (dalam BM)
Q:     The truth is not enough, the truth but nothing but the truth?
A:    Ya

Q:     S.193 KK jika beri keterangan palsu, penjara 7 tahun, faham?
A:    Ya

Q:     Diwajibkan faham?
A:    Faham.

Q:     Jika memberi keterangan dalam mahkamah ini hari Isnin, 24 Jun 2008, telah berjumpa dengan TPM, Dato’ Seri Najib. Pukul berapa jumpa?
A:    8.30 malam

Q:     Di kediamannya?
A:    Ya

Q:     Masa itu Dato Seri Najib ada seorang atau ada orang lagi?
A:    Ada orang lagi, pengawal dan ada 2 orang lagi

Q:     Datin Seri Rosmah tak ada?
A:    Masa balik saya ada nampak dia, dia ada dirumah. Tetapi saya tidak jumpa dia.

Q:     Dato’ Mumtaz?
A:    Tiada

Q:     Bagaimana kamu pergi ke rumah TPM?
A:    Saya dibawa oleh Tn Hj Khairil Anas, pegawai khas TPM

Q:     Bawa kamu ke kediamaan Dato Seri?
A:    Ya

Q:    Dari mana?
A:    Saya pergi naik kereta ke perkarangan rumah Tn Hj Khairil Anas

Q:     Perbincangan tersebut makan berapa masa?
A:    Tidak lama dalam 20 minit

Q:     Sebelum ini ada jumpa Dato’ Seri Najib?
A:    Tidak, itu kali pertama

Q:     Di mana-mana pun kali yang pertama?
A:    Ya, 1st time

Q:     Pernah pergi pejabat Dato’ Seri Najib?
A:    Pernah, dalam bulan Disember 2007 atau Januari 2008

Q:     Ada jumpa beliau?
A:    Tidak

Q:     Tujuan?
A:    Untuk dapat surat sokongan

Q:    Untuk biasiswa?
A:    Bukan, untuk tujuan pinjaman pelajaran MARA untuk ikuti kursus Kadet Pilot di Kota Bharu.

Q:     Pada masa itu apa kelayakan? Gagal University?
A:    Tidak, saya keluar dari University kerana keputusan teruk

Q:     Gagal?
A:    Keluar

Q:     Kenapa?
A:    Kerana keputusan saya tidak bagus

Q:    You want to be a pilot?
A:    They only require SPM

Q:     Ada di sana 20 minit?
A:    Ya

Q:     Cadang Dato Mumtaz ada di sana (kediaman DS Najib)?
A:    Tidak setuju

Q:     Ada kenal Rahimi?
A:    Kenal, Rahimi Osman

Q:     Kawan rapat?
A:    Kawan rapat, kawan sekerja

Q:     Cadang kamu dibawa ke kediaman Najib oleh Dato’ Mumtaz?
A:    Tidak setuju

Q:     Selepas jumpa TPM balik ke rumah?
A:    Saya dihantar semula ke perkarangan Tn Hj Khairil Anas. Selepas beberapa jam Kemudian saya jumpa dengan Rodwan.

Q:     Siapa suruh kamu pergi Hotel Melia?
Kamu di bawa ke sana?
A:    Selepas dihantar pulang, saya terima panggilan telefon dari Tn Rodwan dan minta jumpa di Hotel Melia

Q:     20 minit dengan DS Najib?
A:    20 minit ke ½ jam

Q:     Adakah DS Najib beri nasihat?
A:    Pada mulanya saya cerita kejadian kepada beliau, beliau tidak percaya, beliau terkejut dan agak skeptikal dan tidak percaya.

Q:     Ada DS Najib bagi cadang buat laporan polis?
A:    Tidak
Q:     Di Hotel Melia, adakah Rodwan ada?
A:    Ya

KS:     Untuk identification

SAC Rodwan dicamkan

Q:     Pelikkan jumpa seorang pegawai polis di hotel, bukan di balai?
A:    Tidak pelik kalau dengan AI semua meeting buat di Hotel.

Q:     Biasa untuk pegawai polis jumpa di hotel bukan di balai?
A:    Tidak pasti

YA:     Untuk awak sendiri, tak pelik ke, untuk jumpa di hotel?
A:    Itu pertama kali

KS:     Untuk dapat nasihat / keterangan?
A:    Saya bagitahu masalah saya

Q:     Ada dapatkan nasihat?
A:    Tidak

MY:     SP1 want to answer
KS:     This is very simple question

YA:    Problemnya bila you tanya, sebelum dia jawab you tanya lagi. Sekarang I pun lost.

KS:     Dalam bilik hotel ini? Bukan lobi?
A:    Dalam bilik

Q:     Adakah Rodwan ambil keterangan?
A:    Secara bertulis tidak tetapi secara verbal saya ada bagitahu masalah saya.
Q:     Keterangan diberikan tetapi tak direkod?
A:    Secara lisan

Q:     Ada nasihat untuk buat laporan?
A:    Tidak pada ketika itu

Q:     Ada arahan lain?
A:    Untuk jumpa keesokan hari iaitu 25

Q;     Di mana?
A:    Di Hotel Concorde KL

Q:     Bilik kamu 619?
A:    Saya tidak pasti sebab saya tak jumpa dengan dia

Q:     Jumpa dia apa arahan lanjut?
A:    Saya tak pasti

Q:     Dia beri arahan 24hb untuk jumpa?
A:    Saya tak pasti

Q:     Nothing better to do?  Datang hotel?
A:    Saya tak tanya tujuan jumpa di hotel

Q:     Just like that?
A:    Yes

Q:     25hb adakah Rodwan hubungi kamu?
A:    Saya tak pasti sama ada telefon atau sms

Q:     Did he contacted u?
A:    Saya tak pasti sama ada telefon atau sms

Q:     Awak tak tahu kenapa pergi Concorde, dia tak beri apa-apa untuk jumpa di Concorde?
A:    Ya

Q:     Pelik?
A:    Tidak

Q:     Selepas 25hb ada contact dia?
A:    Tidak

Q:     Chapter closed?
A:    Yes

Q:     Pelik bukan?
A:    Tidak

Q:     Just like that, langsung tidak contact, pelik bukan?
A:    Tidak

Q:     Tidak contact until today?
A:    No

Q:     Beberapa statement yang direkodkan, ada nyatakan nama Rodwan?
A:    Ada

Q:     Peranan Rodwan ada sebut dalam statement polis dari kamu?
A:    Ulang soalan, tak faham. Saya ada sebut nama dia

Q:     Ada kata jumpa di Melia dan ingin jumpa di Concorde?
A:    Ada

Q:     Ketua Polis Negara, Tan Sri Musa Hasan, ada contact awak?
A:    Bukan dia contact saya. Tidak. Saya contact dia
Q:     There was a contact? It doesn’t matter who contacted who.
A:    Ya

KS:     Judicial notice that Ketua Polis Negara(KPN) exist

Q:     Kenapa contact KPN?
A:    Saya nak mengadu masalah saya sebab saya dianiaya oleh AI

Q:     Banyak masalah?
A:    Ya

Q:     Contact KPN?
A:    Contact saja, tidak jumpa

Q:     Bila?
A:    Melalui telefon 25hb pagi

Q:     Contact KPN untuk cerita masalah?
A:    Saya ceritakan saya kena liwat beberapa kali dalam dan luar negara

Q:     Ada berbual dengan dia?
A:    Ada

Q:     Melalui telefon?
A:    Ya

Q:     Ada 1 minit?
A:    Lebih kurang, dia letak telefon dan kata jangan telefon lagi

Q:     Itu saja yang contact dengan dia?
A:    Ya, satu saja kerana beliau marah supaya jangan telefon sebab ingat prank call

Q:     1 minit he listen?
A:    Yes

Q:     Marah, jangan hubungi di masa hadapan?
A:    Ya

Q:     Siapa beri no contact dia?
A:    Saya terdengar perbualan masa di rumah TPM, perbualan mengenai no telefon Tan Sri Musa, I overheard the number then I just keyed in

Q:     TPM contact KPN?
A:    Bukan, he (TPM) just said the number, I don’t remember …

Q:     Perbualan antara DS Najib dan KPN?
A:    Tiada ada contact

Q:     Then , bagaimana dapat no KPN?
A:    Saya tak pasti, tak ingat siapa, mungkin pembantu

Q:     Perbualan antara kamu dan DS Najib?
A:    Ada lain, 3 of us

Q:     Dengar dari perbualan siapa?
A:    Tidak ingat

Q:     Tak boleh ingat?
A:    Tidak

Q:     You straight away keyed in his number?
A:    Saya tak tahu, mungkin jika ada emergency and just keyed in KPN number

Q:     Jauh tempat duduk dari kamu dan DS Najib dengan Khairil Anas?
A:    Quite far

Q:     Sitting far away and using the cellphone?
YA:    Who?
KS:     Anas?
A:    Tidak, dia ada letak seseorang antara anas atau orang lain yang datang

Q:     Ada orang yang datang? Rosmah?
A:    Bukan, saya tak pasti

Q:     Anas asked the number?
A:    I’m not sure

Q:     TPM asked the number?
A:    I’m not sure

Q:     Who was the person that … come in?
A:    I’m tak sure

Q:    Somebody said KPN’s number and you overheard?
A:    Yes

Q:     Pelik? TPM asked number of KPN when you are talking with him?
A:    I overheard the number at the end of the conversation

Q:     What is KPN’s number?
A:    I don’t remember

Q:     Ada tahu siapa Ezam?
A:    Tahu

Q:     Nama penuh?
A:    Ezam Mohd Nor

Q:     Good friend with Ezam?
A:    Kenal begitu saja, bukan kawan, sebab dia public figure.

Q:     Antara 26-28 Jun ada jumpa Ezam?
A:    Yes, I met him, Rahimi bawa saya jumpa dia

Q:     26 Jun?
A:    27 ke 28 dalam 1-2 pagi, in the mid

Q:     Jumpa di mana?
A:    Rawang, Bandar Tasik Puteri

Q:     Di Rawang?
A:    Rawang

Q:     Dia sorg?
A:    Saya dengan Rahimi dan dengan Tuah, my uncle

KS:     Panggil Tuah

YA:     Ini yang dimaksudkan deangn Tuah?

Tuah bin Mohd Alip dicamkan

Q:     Pakcik?
A:    Ya

Q:     Jumpa di Rawang, antara Ezam, Rahimi dan Tuah?
A:    Ya

Q:     4 orang?
A:    Ya

Q:     Perbincangan dengan Ezam?
A:    Saya bagitahu tentang telah dianiaya

Q:     Ezam jadi orang yang pertama kamu buat aduan?
A:    1st person was Tuah

Q:     Bila?
A:    26

Q:     Ezam pada 27 atau 28?
A:    Ya

Q:    Ya, 2 orang sebelum buat laporan?
A:    Bukan, ada lagi. Rahimi ada bawa jumpa Dato’ Mumtaz pada 27hb di kediamannya.

KS:    I want Dato’ Mumtaz and Ezam to be identified. That is why we want to have the list.
YA:     I’m sorry KS, my hand are tight. I cannot go beyond the decision of Federal Court.

KS:    Of course, it will be contempt. Can we adjourn after lunch?
YA:     Mumtaz?
MY:     Tiada saksi-saksi sebab tidak diberitahu. …

YA:    We can proceed?
KS:     The sequence …, I can carry on, no problem.

MY:     We will try to have the witnesses this afternoon.
KS:     Make an attempt to get Mumtaz and Ezam. We want to adjourn.
YA:     We suppose to stop at 1, 2.15?
KS:     We need to file the application and affidavit. 2.30 pm

Court adjourned to 2.30 pm.
[12:07 pm]
[03:30 pm]
KS hadir ke mahkamah.
Pihak-pihak:    seperti terdahulu
[03:33 pm]
MY, NH, KS, SN, PC, CV Praba dan RK diarahkan ke kamar Hakim

[03:40 pm]
Pihak-pihak keluar dari kamar Hakim

[03:43 pm]
JB: Kes dipanggil semula

MY:     Panggil SP1
YA:     Kamu masih lagi di bawah sumpah?
A:     Ya YA

KS:     Pagi ini nama Mumtaz Jaafar ada disebut? Boleh cam?
A:     Ya, boleh cam

KS:     Panggil Dato’ Mumtaz

Dato’ Mumtaz Begum bt Abdul Jaafar dicamkan

KS:     Nama lain adalah Khairil Anas. Boleh cam?
A:    Ya

Khairil Anas  bin Yusof dicamkan

KS:    Diperingkat ini…
YA:     Itu saja ke untuk dicamkan?
MY:    Ya

KS:     At this stage I apply for an adjournment till tomorrow morning for a stay, pending appeal, and for the Notice of Appeal together with Notice of Motion and waiting for extract copy to be served to PP.

MY:     I made my stand earlier; I leave it to the court to decide.

YA:     Case postponed till tomorrow morning. If parties not ready to submit by tomorrow, we will see what happen to this case later. I really hope that we can hear that submission tomorrow.

Court adjourned to 9 am tomorrow.
[03:48 pm]

+++++++++ English Version of The Transcript ++++++++

J3, High Court, KL

Before YA MZMD

Parties:     As before with presence of Raymond Leong (For Bar Council)

[09:15 am]

MY:     For the decision with relation to application of S.112 CPC

YA:     I’ve received KS authorities. This is my decision.

KS asked for SP1’s statement include statement 2.112CPC.

Defense counsel’s request was made after SP1 was crossed-examined.

The application was made based on the difference between SP1’s explanation and the charge in court. KS has a hunch. KS referred to P3, that is the SP1’s police report, stating that the incident happened without his consent, while the charge s.377B does not concern consent. KS claimed that there is reason to suspect that there was no consent, as such the Defense should be provided with SP1’s statement. KS referred to the Husdi case as authority.

MY objected with reason that s.115 does not include a discrepancy in explanation of the charge, because it is the prerogative of the PP to determine a charge with a lesser sentence, this cannot be the basis of a hunch.
There is no doubt the PP has the prerogative over the charge. I agree that while the charge s.377B and this alone cannot be the basis for SP1’s statement to be provided to Defense under s.145 or s.155.

Refer Dato Mokhtar [read]

To this point SP1 claims that the incident took place without his consent, therefore there is no discrepancy thus far. Just because the PP chooses to prosecute under s.377B, cannot be used as a base for discrepancy. The Husni case does not allow witness’ statement to be provided to Defense even for s.155. As such, the application is rejected.

KS:     My instruction is to appeal.

YA:     KS is instructed to appeal the decision.

KS:     There is legal provision for us to take up this matter as this is a noble issue. What is important is s.15 Courts of Judicature Act 1964 [read]. S.3 Courts of Judicature Act 1964  [read]. Now the issue is whether YA decision is interlocutory?
Refer to Tag 4, pg 7, PO in that case – what is a final order? Refer to the amendment of the words ‘decision’ of s.3 Courts of Judicature Act 1964.

The FC ruling on that matter is what is final order even if made within the trial is appealable, it must be finally disposed the right of the parties. If YA decided not in our favour, coz we want the supply of PW1 statement, our position would be that the statement is for the purpose of impeachment.

S.377B and S.377C is not in term of enhancement of sentence. YA agreed with MY. But it is two distinct offences, one is consensual anal intercourse and the other is non-consensual. PW1 is the star W of the PP, the effect of impeachment that his entire testimony would fall. Unlike Singapore, the Court still can accept some and reject some.

YA:     The gist of your submission that my decision is final?

KS:     Yes, I’m saying that if PW1 testimony is impeached, once the credibility of W, his entire testimony must fall [read].

Refer to PP v Munusamy

If our application is successful then PW1 will be impeached and all his testimony will fall. It is final order, despite what is arising in this proceeding, on the FC in DSAI case. AI have all the right to appeal.

MY will not object to that, the PP would not want to tender any evidence, if the PW1 testimony was impeached, his testimony would be a stardust, nothing remain. What is there to proceed? Whether this Court still want 2 proceed if NOA has been filed? Will this Court allow a stay of proceeding as this matter determine by the Court of Appeal? The next date is one week before the Parliament seating. From now till at the end of the months to determine this issue. We have more than 2 weeks. I pray for YA to consider a stay.

MY:     I will not reply for the last part because it is irrelevant. With regard for the stay, If I may say something, this application by KS assumed will successful, which render SP1 evidence will be impeach, is a presumption. But the effect of YA ruling is, if KS said that it should happen, the proper procedure would be s. 167 EA. Refer to our bundle at Tag 7 (provision EA).
Refer to Tag 10, s.167 EA is always be read with all the authorities which also discuss about s. 422 CPC.

Read tag 10. Case Juraimi Hussain’s case, pg 152 referred [Tag 10]

This evi of PW1 is improperly admitted, only then…[] []

Refer to case Tag 4 and Tag 5 –

KS may want to say, there is one instances, where we agreed to a stay, when there was a application to disqualified YA, that is the only instance where the Court should stay.

KS:     MY come prepared with an authorities.

MY:     Yesterday KS asked an adjournment to prepare for a full submission. I don’t know what KS would say, so I anticipate. You cannot say that I already know.
Since I wouldn’t know obviously I have to anticipate it. I have to come prepared. Unfortunately KS come unprepared.

KS:    MY come prepared.

MY:     I said that I will supply [][], when KS come [][] must b anticipate. No guessing, thank God, I’m right.

KS:     He said that he come prepared and I’m not. They come prepared and they conspired with YA.

MY:     I just anticipate if the ruling is against me..

YA:     In this court of mine, there is something called “a contempt proceeding”. Stand down.

[09:45 am]

[09:57 am]

Same parties.

MY:     Case for ruling

KS:    As I said earlier MY come prepared for the stay. I need time, I’m not prepared. We’re not saying anything that amounting to contempt. All I want is time to reply. Just give me ½ an hour or 1 hr.

YA:     Granted 1 hr.

[10:00 am]

[11:05 am]

Parties as before.

JB:     Case is recalled.

KS:     The authority in regard for a stay [refer to a loose copy of a case]. We want to show to this Court there is a special circumstances and why the application for stay should be granted.

Refer to para.23,pg 269, it is a civil case but applicable to criminal. [Read]

What FC ordered [in that case] there must be a special circumstances that we must dispose in the affidavit and not from bar table, and MY will get the opportunity to reply the affidavit in support and affidavit in reply. I’m not playing with time here. The circumstances must be dispose in a affidavit. I’m not going to s.422 at this stage or even s.167. There could be a serious misdirection.

YA:     What are you asking now?

KS:     To file in an affidavit and Notice of Appeal.

YA:     I take your word that there will be a Notice of Appeal.

KS:     The Notice will be file in this afternoon, there must affidavit that include a special circumstances, only then we will submit on the law. That how it ought to be done. They’re r relying on Kosma’s case.

I will prepare the affidavit this afternoon so that MY can reply, then YA can make a ruling tomorrow morning, if the ruling is against us, we’re ready with the cross. We’re not playing with time. I’m applying for a time to prep affidavit and Notice of Appeal.

MY:     YA, I agreed with KS that the special circumstances must be dispose in an affidavit. But that is not the real issue, the issue is if whether an appeal operate a stay of proceeding?

Only KS can show by the affidavit if there is a special circumstances, but do we stay the proceeding until the Notice file in? I think until then, the trial should proceed. I remember during the lower court, for this case to b transferred, we prepared the affidavit during lunch and ready to proceed with the trial. The proceeding must go on as usual []

KS:    We need time to file the Notice. What they’re concern if the [][], if MY insist, we’re prepared to go on with the trial. That is not the point, why rush thing? But we will be unable to prepare the application for stay, the affidavit, this all take time. We have made an oral appl, I [][]

MY can be cited for contempt if go against the FC decision, even YA. But not I.

YA:     Stand down

[11:15 am]

[11:22 am]

JB:     Case is recalled.

YA:     I agreed until and unless Notice and affidavit is file, the question of stay does not arise. Please continue with the trial.

KS:     I have no problem to go on, call SP1

SP1 retakes oath (in BM)

Q:     The truth is not enough, the truth but nothing but the truth?

A:    Yes

Q:     S.193 KK if you are providing false evidence, the jail term is 7 years, do you understand?

A:    Yes

Q:     You are compelled, understand?

A:    Understood.

Q:     As testified in this court on Monday, 24 Jun 2008, you had met with the DPM,Dato’ Seri Najib. What time was that?

A:    8.30pm

Q:     At his residence?

A:    Yes

Q:     Was he alone then or was Dato Seri Najib with someone else?

A:    There was someone else, a guard and 2 others.

Q:     Datin Seri Rosmah wasn’t there?

A:    When I was leaving, I saw her, she was at home. But I did not meet her.

Q:     Dato’ Mumtaz?

A:    No

Q:     How did you get to the DPM’s residence?

A:    I was brought there by Tn Hj Khairil Anas, DPM’s Special Officer.

Q:     He brought you to Dato Seri’s residence?

A:    Yes

Q:    From where?

A:    I drove to the compund of Tn Hj Khairil Anas’ residence.

Q:     How long did the discussion last?

A:    Not long – about 20 mins.

Q:     Had you met Dato’ Seri Najib before that?

A:    No, this was the first time.

Q:     Anywhere else even, this was the 1st time?

A:    Yes, 1st time

Q:     Have you been to Dato’ Seri Najib’s office?

A:    I have, in Dec 2007 or Jan 2008

Q:     Did you meet him?

A:    No

Q:     The purpose?

A:    To gain support

Q:    For a scholarship?

A:    No, for a MARA study loan, to do a Cadet Pilot course in Kota Bharu

Q:     Were you qualified then? Failed University?

A:    No, I dropped out of University because of poor results.

Q:     Failed?

A:    Dropped out.

Q:     Why?

A:    Because my results were poor

Q:    You want to be a pilot?

A:    They only require SPM

Q:     You were there for 20mins?

A:    Yes

Q:     I put it to you that Dato Mumtaz was there (DPM’s residence)?

A:    I disagree

Q:     Do you know Rahimi?

A:    I do, Rahimi Osman

Q:     Close friend?

A:    Close friend, colleague at work.

Q:    I put it to you that you were brought to DPM’s residence by Dato Mumtaz?

A:    I disagree

Q:    After meeting DPM, you returned home?

A:    I was sent back to the compound of Tn Hj Khairil Anas. After a few hours, I met Rodwan.

Q:     Who asked you to go to Melia Hotel?

You were brought there?

A:    After returning home, I received a phone call from Tn Rodwan was asked to meet at Melia Hotel.

Q:     20 mins with DS Najib?

A:    20 mins to ½ hour

Q:     Did Dato Najib give you any advice?

A:    When I first recounted the incident to him, he did not believe, he was shocked and rather sceptical and didn’t believe.

Q:     Did Dato Najib suggest you make a police report?

A:    No

Q:     At Melia Hotel, was Rodwan there?

A:    Yes

KS:     For identification.

SAC Rodwan is identified.

Q:     Strange to meet a police officer at a hotel, not the police station?

A:    Not strange as with AI, all meetings were at Hotels.

Q:     Is it normal for a police officer to meet at a hotel and not the police station?

A:    I cannot be certain

YA:     But to you yourself, do you not find it strange to meet at a hotel?

A:    It was the 1st time

KS:     To get advice, clarification?

A:    I recounted my problem

Q:     Did you receive any advice?

A:    No

MY:     SP1 want 2 answer

KS:     This is very simple question

YA:    The problem is when you ask a question, before he can answer, you ask again. Now even I am lost.

KS:     In a hotel room, not in the hotel lobby?

A:    In the room

Q:     Did Rodwan take a statement?

A:    Written wise no, but I did recount my problem verbally.

Q:     Statement was given but not recorded?

A:    Verbally.

Q:     Any advice to lodge a report?

A:    Not at that moment

Q:     Any other instructions?

A:    To meet again the next day, 25th

Q;     Where?

A:    Concorde Hotel, KL

Q:     Your room was 619?

A:    I can’t be certain as I did not meet

Q:     Jumpa dia apa arahan lanjut? Meet him and what following instructions?

A:    I am not certain

Q:     He asked you to meet on 24th?

A:    I can’t be certain

Q:     Nothing better 2 do?  Go to hotel?

A:    I didn’t ask the purpose of meeting at the hotel

Q:     Just like that?

A:    Yes

Q:     25th did Rodwan contact you?

A:    I can’t be certain whether by phone call or sms.

Q:     Did he contacted u?

A:    I can’t be certain whether by phone call or sms.

Q:     You didn’t know why to go to Concorde, he didn’t give you anything to meet at Concorde?

A:    Yes

Q:     Strange?

A:    No

Q:     Did you contact him after 25th?

A:    No

Q:     Chapter closed?

A:    Yes

Q:     Strange, correct?

A:    No

Q:     Just like that, no more contact, strange, correct?

A:    No

Q:     No contact until today?

A:    No

Q:     The few statements recorded, did you mention Rodwan’s name?

A:    Yes

Q:     Rodwan’s role was mentioned in your statement to the police?

A:    Please repeat the question, I do not understand. I did mention his name.

Q:     Did you mention meeting at Melia and then wanting to meet again at Concorde?

A:    I did.

Q:     IGP, Tan Sri Musa Hasan, did he contact you?

A:    He didn’t contact me, no. I contacted him.

Q:     There was a contact? It doesn’t matter who contacted who.

A:    Yes

KS:     Judicial notice that IGP exist

Q:     Why contact IGP?

A:    I wanted to complain about my problem because I was abused by AI.

Q:     many problems?

A:    Yes

Q:     Contact IGP?

A:    Contacted only, didn’t meet

Q:     When?

A:    On the telephone on 25hb morning

Q:     Contact IGP to tell him your problems?

A:    I told him I was sodomised several times within the country and overseas.

Q:     Did you chat with him?

A:    I did

Q:     On the telephone?

A:    Yes

Q:     For a minute?

A:    About – he said not to call again and hung up.

Q:     That was your only contact with him?

A:    Yes, only once as he was angry and told me off as he thought I was playing a prank, and told me not to call again.

Q:     I minute he listen?

A:    Yes

Q:     Angry, don’t call again?

A:    Yes

Q:     Who gave you his contact number?

A:    I overhead a conversation while at DPM’s residence, a conversation concerning Tan Sri Musa’s telephone number which I heard and then I just keyed it in.

Q:     DPM contact IGP?

A:    No, he (DPM) just said the number, I don’t remember[][

Q:     Conversation between DS Najib and IGP?

A:    There was no contact

Q:     Then, how did you get the IGP’s number?

A:    I can’t be certain, can’t remember who, maybe an assistant.

Q:     The conversation between you and DS Najib?

A:    There was another, 3 of us

Q:     Heard from the conversation who it was?

A:    I can’t remember

Q:     Can’t remember?

A:    No

Q:     U straight away keyed in his num?

A:    I didn’t know, maybe there’d be an emergency and just keyed in IGP’s number

Q:     Were you and DS Najib seated far from Khairil Anas?
vA:    Quite far

Q:     Sitting far away and using the cellphone?

YA:    Who?

KS:     Anas?

A:    No, he had seated someone else between Anas or someone else came.

Q:     Someone else came? Rosmah?

A:    No, I am not certain

Q:     Anas asked the num?

A:    I’m not sure

Q:     DPM asked the num?

A:    I’m not sure

Q:     Who was the person that []][]come in?

A:    I’m not sure

Q:    Somebody said IGP num and u overheard?

A:    Yes

Q:     Strange? DPM asked num of IGP when u r talking with him?

A:    I overheard the num at the end of the conversation

Q:     What is IGP num?

A:    I don’t remember

Q:     Do you know Ezam?

A:    I do

Q:     Full name?

A:    Ezam Mohd Nor

Q:     Good friend with Ezam?

A:    I just know him, not friends, as he is a public figure.

Q:     Between 26-28 June did you meet Ezam?

A:    Yes, I met him, Rahimi brought me to meet him

Q:     26 June?

A:    27 or 28 at about 1-2am, in the mid

Q:     Where did you meet?

A:    Rawang, Bandar Tasik Puteri

Q:     In Rawang?

A:    Rawang

Q:     Him alone?

A:    Rahimi and I, and with Tuah, my uncle

KS:     Panggil Tuah

YA:     Is this who you mean by Tuah?

Tuah bin Mohd Alip is identified

Q:     Uncle?

A:    Yes

Q:     Met at Rawang, with Ezam, Rahimi and Tuah?

A:    Yes

Q:     4 persons?

A:    Yes

Q:     Conversation with Ezam?

A:    I told him about how I was abused.

Q:     Ezam was the 1st person you complained to?

A:    1st person was Tuah

Q:     When?

A:    26

Q:     Ezam on 27 or 28?

A:    Yes

Q:    Yes, 2 persons before making a report?

A:    No, there was more. Rahimi brought me to meet Dato’ Mumtaz on 27th at his residence.

KS:    I want Dato’ Mumtaz and Ezam to be identified. That is why we want to have the list.

YA:     I’m sorry KS, my hands are tied. I cannot go beyond the decision of FC.

KS:    Of course, it will be contempt. Can we adjourn after lunch?

YA:     Mumtaz?

MY:     No witnesses because they weren’t informed.[][]

YA:    We can proceed?

KS:     The sequence [][][], I can carry on, no problem.

MY:     We will try to have the witnesses this afternoon.

KS:     Make an attempt to get Mumtaz and Ezam. We want 2 adjourn.

YA:     We suppose 2 stop at 1, 2.15?

KS:     We need to file the application and affidavit. 2.30 pm

Court adjourned to 2.30 pm.

[12:07 pm]

[03:30 pm]

KS present in court.

Parties as before.

[03:33 pm]

MY, NH, KS, SN, PC, CV Praba and RK are instructed to go to the Judges’ chambers.

[03:40 pm]

Parties exited Judges’ chambers

[03:43 pm]

JB: Case is recalled.

MY:     Call SP1

YA:     You are still under oath?

A:     Yes, YA

KS:     This morning, Mumtaz Jaafar’s name was mentioned. Can you identify him?

A:     Yes I can.

KS:     Dato’ Mumtaz

Dato’ Mumtaz Begum bt Abdul Jaafar is identified

KS:     The other name was Khairil Anas. Can you identify him?

A:    Yes

Khairil Anas  bin Yusof is identified.

KS:    At this stage…

YA:     Is that all for identification?

MY:    Yes

KS:     At this stage I apply for an adjournment till tomorrow morning for a stay, pending appeal, and for the Notice of Appeal together with Notice of Motion and waiting for extract copy to be served to PP.

MY:     I made my stand earlier; I leave it to the court to decide.

YA:     Case postponed till tomorrow morning. If parties not ready to submit by tomorrow, we will see what happen to this case later. I really hope that we can hear that submission tomorrow.

Court adjourned to 9 am tomorrow.

[03:48 pm]

Comments»

1. Meriah - May 13, 2010

Salam,

Mohon izin tuan untuk copy transkrip perbicaraan untuk di paste ke blog saya di Arkib Perbicaraan Anwar Ibrahim

Hanya lapuran blog ini yang amat tepat dan bebas.

Terima kasih

2. Malaysian - May 14, 2010

You are most welcome, our main aim is to let everyone evaluate for themselves.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: