PUTRAJAYA – Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan could not have fabricated evidence as there is overwhelming truth in his entire testimony over his alleged sodomy by PKR advisor Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, the Federal Court heard today.
Lead prosecutor Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah said Mohd Saiful, the complainant in the case, could have fabricated evidence, but he did not.
“There are lot of rings of truth. This young man could not have made up the story. He could have denied certain things, but he did not, so he is a truthful witness,” he said.
Muhammad Shafee said Mohd Saiful had answered spontaneous questions posed to him in court and had extensively explained one by one what happened before and after the alleged sodomy.
He also submitted that Mohd Saiful was sexually harassed by Anwar in his workplace prior to the incident where he had been subjected to a dominant, influential and charismatic person.
Muhammad Shafee was submitting for the prosecution in the appeal by Anwar against his conviction and five-year jail sentence for having allegedly sodomised his former aide, Mohd Saiful, at a Desa Damansara condominium unit in Bukit Damansara, Kuala Lumpur, on June 26, 2008.
He said the sexual harassment took place within four months before Mohd Saiful resigned as Anwar’s personal aide.
Muhammad Shafee pointed out there were indications that the sodomy incident on June 26, 2008 was not the first time based on Mohd Saiful’s evidence where he had demonstrated how it happened.
“The witness (Mohd Saiful) had said the act was rough. He said he felt pain in his rectum and suffered stomach cramps and ‘Anwar squirted his semen into my anus as usual’,” he argued.
Muhammad Shafee said the words ‘as usual’ indicated that the alleged incident had occurred more than once.
He said Mohd Saiful had said that after they had discussed the work schedule, Anwar had approached him and said, “Can I f… you today?”
Muhammad Shafee said the words would only be mentioned if you knew a person well.
Saying that Mohd Saiful was a truthful witness, Muhammad Shafee said the complainant had demonstrated the sodomy act at the condominium before the trial judge.
He said that initially Mohd Saiful was reluctant to accept Anwar’s offer for sodomy, but when Anwar became angry, both of them went to the master bedroom where the alleged incident occurred.
Muhammad Shafee also argued that if there was no relationship between them, why would Anwar give a Brioni (Italian high-end fashion) suit to Mohd Saiful.
“Even I do not have (a Brioni brand suit); we know how expensive it is,” he said.
He submitted that Anwar had brought Mohd Saiful on overseas trips to Singapore and Hong Kong, and in Singapore the complainant was given US$1,000 as allowance.
Muhammad Shafee said despite Mohd Saiful being a university dropout, Anwar had given him a generous allowance and the complainant had his own room in the office.
On another point, he said Mohd Saiful was not an accomplice as there were case laws that stated sexual victims could not be treated as such.
Muhammad Shafee said that as a university’s dropout, Mohd Saiful could not have made up the story and created lies unless he was superintellingent.
On Anwar’s statement from the dock, he said the appellant had alleged that the sodomy charge was a political conspiracy by linking the highest person in the country, the prime minister, right down to the investigating officer.
Muhammad Shafee said Anwar also attacked the trial judge which, he claimed, amounted to contempt of court.
“Anyone who decided in finality against him is part of the conspiracy and dishonest, but when he was acquitted, it was not part of the conspiracy,” he argued.
He also pointed out the failure on Anwar’s part to call his alibi witnesses, which was crucial to the appellant’s case.
After the court adjourned the hearing to Monday, Muhammad Shafee told reporters he had covered 20 per cent of his submission today. – Bernama