Conspirator, your name is
Mahathir
Mohamad
It would be euphemistic to call Anwar Ibrahim's ordeal a
trial.
It was a cynical political sham, writes Arthur Wyndham.
The guilty verdict this week in the sodomy trial of Malaysia's
former
deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim was condemned by
world
leaders, including John Howard, but none should have been
surprised
by it.
It was, as Anwar said, a political conspiracy to bring him
down,
conceived at the highest level of government, executed with
the
collusion of the police, the security services and the judiciary of
the
highest courts in the land.
The trial was not about sodomy. That was never proved, in spite
of
"confessions" implicating Anwar extracted after a week or two
in
the notorious Bukit Aman remand centre.
It was about political survival - the survival of the Prime Minister,
Dr
Mahathir Mohamad - and had its origins long before
Anwar's
dismissal and arrest in September 1988.
A rift between Dr Mahathir and Anwar over how to contain
the
devastating effects on Malaysia's economy of the 1997
Asian
currency crisis, compounded by consistent speculation on
a
challenge to the leadership, made Anwar's sacking inevitable.
But his arrest on charges of sodomy stunned the nation, divided
and
politicised its people as never before, and brought huge protests
to
the streets.
Anwar's ordeal began with a letter sent to Dr Mahathir in
August
1997 alleging that Anwar not only was a homosexual who
had
sodomised his driver, but had also committed adultery with the
wife
of his private secretary.
Special Branch officers who investigated the allegations at the
time
reported to Dr Mahathir that they could find no supporting
evidence.
At a news conference Dr Mahathir announced that the case
was
closed, and that Anwar had his full confidence and would
succeed
him as prime minister.
In turn, Anwar requested that Special Branch obtain
written
retractions from those who made the claims. It was on this
action,
understandable in the circumstances, that a year later the
corruption
and sodomy charges would be based.
The letter and its allegations were a time bomb, primed, filed
and
ready for future use. The fuse would be lit by one of
Anwar's
strongest supporters of a factional attempt to challenge
Dr
Mahathir's leadership.
He was Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, head of the influential youth
division
of the ruling party, UMNO.
At the late June 1998 UMNO general assembly Hamidi made
a
spirited attack on government cronyism and and nepotism. He
spoke
of "bailouts", no-collateral bank loans to debt-ridden companies
with
government connections, of lucrative contracts for
national
infrastructure projects given to to friends and relatives of those
in
power, and of other activities implying graft at high levels
of
government.
He was talking about corruption but did not give it a name. It
was
seen for what it clearly was: an attack on the leadership of
Dr
Mahathir, and as Hamidi acting as a surrogate for
Anwar's
leadership ambitions.
It was to backfire spectacularly, to destroy both Hamidi's
and
Anwar's political careers, and to trigger the most destructive
period
of UMNO's history. Hamidi, one observer said, was "a young
bull
who couldn't recognise a tiger". The tiger was his Prime Minister.
There followed a series of seemingly unrelated events. A
month
after Hamidi's attack on corruption an obscure provincial judge
was
transferred to the High Court as a judicial commissioner, a
function
below that of a judge.
A month later, on August 29, he was formally installed as a judge
of
the High Court. He was Augustin Paul, a Malaysian-born
ethnic
Indian.
Four days later, the Prime Minister's Department issued a
brief
statement to the effect that Datuk Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim had
been
removed from his posts of deputy prime minister and
finance
minister. No reason was given.
The next day, at a news conference, Dr Mahathir
announced
Anwar had been expelled from UMNO. When asked the reason,
he
replied: "We find him unsuitable, that's all. I do not have to give
a
reason as it is a party decision."
Most of the journalists at that news conference would have
known
the real reason for Anwar's sacking and expulsion: the
perceived
threat to Dr Mahathir's leadership.
Few would have expected the official reason for his arrest and
the
trials that followed: the affidavits filed in court the day after
his
sacking accusing him of sodomy and adultery.
At a news conference held at his home Anwar denied
the
allegations and said he was a victim of a high-level conspiracy.
He was arrested 18 days later, following huge street
demonstrations
against his sacking.
Arrested with him were 12 of his supporters. They included
Ahmad
Zahid Hamidi, now paying the price for his accusations
of
government corruption.
At a news conference Dr Mahathir said he had spoken to those
who
made the allegations and that "I am convinced of his
[Anwar's]
guilt".
Meanwhile, somewhere in the bowels of the halls of justice,
Judge
Paul, the newest and least experienced judge of the High
Court,
almost certainly was being briefed on the charges Anwar
would
face and the verdict he was expected to deliver.
Judge Paul had been appointed to the High Court's appellate
and
special powers division. The trial would come under the
jurisdiction
of the criminal division, in which a veteran judge was available
to
hear the case.
However, two days before Anwar's scheduled High
Court
appearance on October 5, Judge Paul was assigned to the trial.
It defies imagination to believe that his elevation as a High
Court
judge just a month before Anwar's arrest, and his assignment to
the
trial at short notice, was unconnected with what Anwar claimed
to
be a political conspiracy to bring him down.
In the two trials Anwar faced, the first for corruption and the
second
for sodomy, the collusion between judge and prosecution
was
starkly, and at times comically, revealed.
In both trials the judge allowed the prosecution to amend the
charges
mid-trial. In any independent judicial system the trials would
have
been aborted.
In the first trial Judge Paul accepted a prosecution request to
amend
the charges after farcical and failed attempts to prove
Anwar's
sexual misconduct. The trial proceeded on the basis that
the
prosecution need prove only that allegations of sexual
misconduct
were made.
The judge explained: "The onus of proof on the prosecution is
the
same whether the allegations are true or false. What requires
proof
is only the fact that the allegations were made. Consequently,
proof
that the allegations are false does not lend weight to the defence
and
is therefore irrelevant."
Before the corruption trial began, two others alleged to have
been
sodomised by Anwar were tried and sentenced to six months'
jail.
One was 51-year-old Pakistan-born Munawar Anees, his
former
speechwriter.
On his release from prison he retracted his guilty plea, which he
said
was forced by sustained police brainwashing and humiliation.
He
was again arrested and charged with perjury.
The other was Anwar's adopted brother, Indonesian-born
Sukma
Darmarwan. During his trial a defence medical expert
gave
evidence that he had never been sodomised. Nevertheless, he
too
was convicted and sentenced to six months' jail.
Several other Anwar supporters were arrested and charged
with
having been sodomised by Anwar. The only one who did not
claim
that his confession was made under duress was Azizan Abu
Bakar,
the man on whose allegations both trials were based. His
immediate
reward was to be appointed director of a company called
Azariq
Sdn.Bhd (limited company), with instructions to "turn the
company
around".
During the trial, when even the judge was prompted to remark
that
his evidence was "one thing today and another tomorrow", he
was
promoted to manager of a development company, with a car for
his
private use. It helped to give his evidence focus.
The corruption trial dragged on for 78 days before ending
with
Anwar's six-year jail sentence in April last year. The sodomy
trial
began in June, but would leave the 20th century behind and
badger
along for eight months of the 21st.
Facing the court were both Anwar and his adopted brother, on
bail
from his earlier conviction of having been sodomised by
Anwar.
This time Sukma was jointly charged with Anwar of
having
sodomised Azizan Abu Baka. Judge Arifin Jaka was the ringmaster.
In the early days of the trial the prosecution twice amended
the
charges. The second amendment made significant changes to
the
date of the alleged offence.
From "one night at 7.45 pm in May 1992" was amended to
"one
night at 7.45 pm between January and March 1993". Punctuality
by
the clock was observed, but the month and year were variables.
The defence had shown that the apartment building in which
the
offences allegedly occurred was still being built in May 1992.
The defence claim of mistrial was ruled out of order by Judge
Arifin
as expeditiously as had Judge Paul. What followed was such
a
bare-faced travesty of justice that even he must have
been
impressed.
