PUTRAJAYA — The alleged sodomy between PKR advisor Datuk Seri
Anwar Ibrahim and his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan never took place,
the defence told the Federal Court here today.
Anwar’s lead counsel Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram said this was due to the fact
that a China silk carpet in the condominium unit 11-5-1, where the sodomy
allegedly took place, was recovered in another condominium unit, 11-5-2.
He said the carpet was seized by police forensic officer Supt Amidon Anan for
the DNA profiling after he went to the condominium with the investigating
officer and Mohd Saiful to collect the exhibits.
Sri Ram said Amidon, in his testimony, told the High Court that he only found
hair in unit 11-5-1.
“The prosecution claimed that the carpet was moved. There is no evidence that
the carpet was moved. The carpet cannot be moved into the other unit. I do not
believe in flying carpets,” he said, drawing laughter from the packed courtroom.
Sri Ram said the only person who could have confirmed this fact was the
condominium owner, Hasanuddin Abd Hamid, but the prosecution never called him to
A five-man bench chaired by Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria is hearing the
appeal to set aside Anwar’s conviction and sentence imposed by the Court of
Appeal on March 7 this year after it had overturned a High Court decision to
acquit the opposition leader.
The other four judges on the Federal Court panel are Court of Appeal president
Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif and Federal Court judges Tan Sri Abdull Hamid Embong, Tan
Sri Suriyadi Halim Omar and Datuk Ramly Ali.
The Court of Appeal had found Anwar, 67, guilty of having sodomised his former
aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari, 27, at Unit 11-5-1 of the Desa Damansara Condominium
in Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara, between 3.10 pm and 4.30 pm on June 26,
The charge, under Section 377B of the Penal Code, carries a jail sentence of up
to 20 years, and whipping, upon conviction.
Queried by Justice Abdull Hamid whether Mohd Saiful Bukhari was shown the
carpet during the trial, Sri Ram said the complainant had identified the
Justice Arifin also asked Sri Ram about the two units which were situated
opposite each other, to which co-counsel Ramkarpal Singh Deo stood up and
explained that the High Court judge had visited the condominium.
“But it was not recorded in the notes of proceedings,” said Justice Arifin.
To a question by Justice Md Raus, Sri Ram said there was no explanation and
evidence on why the carpet was moved.
“Failure to explain why the carpet was moved to another unit has demolished
the prosecution’s case.
“We submit that the act of sodomy never happened. The defence has proved
beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had never sodomised Mohd Saiful
(Bukhari),” he said.
Sri Ram also said that though the prosecution contended that the sodomy act was
performed on the carpet and Mohd Saiful Bukhari testified that he was forced to
take position on it, the forensic had not found any stain on the exhibit.
He said that based on the testimony of the four doctors who examined Mohd
Saiful Bukhari, there was also no penetration on the complainant’s rectum.
Once again, Sri Ram attacked Mohd Saiful Bukhari’s credibility and labelled
him an untruthful witness, saying his testimony pertaining to the alleged sodomy
was completely a fiction.
Sri Ram submitted that Mohd Saiful Bukhari was adding pepper and salt to the
story of the sodomy incident, ‘spicing and cooking’ it up.
He said the crux of the prosecution’s case was the evidence from its key
witness, Mohd Saiful Bukhari. Therefore, if his evidence could not be believed,
the whole case collapsed, he added.
Sri Ram said Mohd Saiful Bukhari, in his testimony, had idolised Anwar but
evidence before the court through Mohd Najwan Halimi, a friend of the
complainant, was that he (Mohd Saiful Bukhari) hated the opposition leader from
the time he had been studying at Universiti Tenaga Nasional (Uniten).
He said Mohd Najwan’s testimony showed that the complainant was pro-Barisan
Nasional and always uploaded his photos with national leaders, and Mohd Saiful
Bukhari also captioned the accused as ‘Anwar pemimpin munafik’ (Anwar, the
Sri Ram also pointed out that Mohd Najwan was shocked after knowing that the
complainant worked with Anwar.
He also described Mohd Saiful Bukhari as an opportunist after the
complainant met the then deputy prime minister (Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak) at
the latter’s residence to get Najib’s recommendation to enable him to enrol for
a pilot’s course.
Sri Ram said the complainant was scared to lodge a police report after the
sodomy incident. He said Mohd Saiful Bukhari had a hidden motive and, therefore,
the court should not give any weight to his testimony.
Sri Ram contended that Mohd Saiful Bukhari was not an “ordinary boy” as he
had tried to elicit information from the then Deputy Public Prosecutor Farah
Azlina Abdul Latif, who was previously involved in the sodomy case at the High
Court stage, by seducing her.
“My tale is not that of an Arabian Night of flying carpets. My tale is
real,” he said.
Sri Ram also raised the issue of the Brioni suit which Mohd Saiful Bukhari
claimed was given to him by Anwar, and said that when the pants (of the Brioni
suit) was tendered in court, it bore no label.
He said the defence had doubts as to whether it was a Brioni or ‘brownie’
Lead prosecutor Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah then stood up and informed
the court that the word was ‘Brioni’ and jokingly said it sounded like
Sri Ram will continue his submission at 3 pm tomorrow.