October 6, 2011
BREAKING NEWS: Sodomy 2 Trial
Premier Najib Abdul Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor will not be testifying in the Sodomy II trial as they are, according to the Hon’ble Judge, “not material witnesses”. So the court strikes out subpoenas served on Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and his wife, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor.–Din Merican
Najib and Rosmah can skip trial, court rules
KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 6 — Datuk Seri Najib Razak and his wife need not testify in the Sodomy II trial, the High Court ruled today.
Judge Datuk Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah said that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s lawyers had failed to prove “relevancy” in issuing a subpoena to the prime minister and Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor to testify in the trial.
Lawyers acting for Najib and Rosmah have argued that the duo are not relevant witnesses to Anwar’s ongoing sodomy trial and that they would not be able to offer any material evidence to the court.
But Anwar’s lawyers have argued otherwise, saying Najib’s testimony could shed light on the disposition of the opposition leader’s accuser in the days leading up to the alleged incident.
Defence counsel Karpal Singh asserted that as the Prime Minister had met Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan on the night of July 24 — two days before the latter accused Anwar of sodomising him — Najib’s account of the meeting would “go a long way” in assisting the court.
Karpal told reporters later that the defence will file an appeal tomorrow in Putrajaya against Mohd Zabidin’s decision.“The trial judge did not even give reasons for his ruling, especially since he reserved his judgment for days,” the lawyer said.
Din Merican: the Malaysian DJ Blogger 
No need for them to appear as witnesses at the Sodomy trial. Yes, both the testimonies of the PM and his controversial wife are not relevant. It would not help the prosecution as the defence has completely destroyed the case against Anwar Ibrahim. The DNA expert representing Anwar Ibrahim successfully damaged the credibility of the DNA sample and those professionals in the Chemistry Department. It is best to just drop the case and set Anwar Ibrahim free.
If you guys are thinking that Anwar will walk free you must be dreaming. Not in BolehLand where arrangements are made behind the scene for an outcome, as desired by the BN. All else is a facade.
Guru Singh,
That is if you are the Judge or if the judge is some honest judges. But this is a malay judge man hearing the case.
The rule of evidence & procedure is quite simple lah. It is up to the prosecution to call any witnesses they like to prove their case. Likewise it is up to the defence to do so, more so in this case, when both husband and wife were on the prosecution list of witnesses and were offered to the defence. Why the judge wants to bail out the 2?
The judge is playing kite-flying lah. If he doesn’t have the balls to adjudge a case w/o fear or favor, better recuse himself. The defence also had made countless application for him to do so. Why make a fool of himself just like Ariffin Jaka of Sodomy 1.
_________
LMa,
What law of evidence are you talking about? It is the law of expedience in Malaysia. G-Singh is correct; the prosecution case is weak after the DNA foul up by the Police Officer Jude and the Chemistry Department. On a technicality, the case should be thrown out. And here we are not dealing with technicality. It is politics.–Din Merican
Altantuya’s case written judgement still not prepared after TWO years. Appeal by two found guilty of MURDER without MOTIVE still in limbo. Civil suit by Altantuya’s dad against GOM still not given a date for mention. Najib and Rosmah can skip court hearings. Anwars fate in SOD 2 probably already written, signed and sealed and waiting for the judge to regurgitate ,with foam forming around his mouth !! Malaysia semua boleh !!!
the learned judge..judge carma lah..this judge the most kasi ($) – you can put whatever you want la…hehehe! Good image for 1Malaya!
Anwar Ibrahim is destined to return to Sungai Buloh. He will remain incarcerated until Pakatan Rakyat comes to power. They will pardon him. My ancestor suffered the same fate. That is why we now yell, Geranimo before we go into action.
I will have to agree with the Prosecution that the defense is on a fishing expedition.
Mr Bean – October 4, 2011 at 10:10 am
——————————–
Mr Bean was right.
LMa, we all agree that this sodomy 2 is politically designed to send Anwar back to prison. Let’s not be racist by blaming the ‘malay’ judge. Remember who was the judge in sodomy 1? Race is not the issue here. Its political, like Din said.
“Yes, both the testimonies of the PM and his controversial wife are not relevant.” Gurubachan Singh
Relevant to the issue of conspiracy?
” …. when both husband and wife were on the prosecution list of witnesses and were offered to the defence. Why the judge wants to bail out the two? ” LMa
So the Defense served notice on the two Ws but through their lawyers they refused to attend and hence the subpoena?
The judge must have done his balancing act, balancing competing interests i.e. what Najib would have to say in response to questions from the Defense, its relevance and weigh that against public interest. He is the Prime Minister, and he cannot be made use of by the Defense (read: Anwar) to make political speeches.
Forget about due process , judges know which side their bread is buttered, they see themselves as servants of UMNO supreme council , given all these and more, what legal processews are you guys talking about. Let us not kid ourselves . We are all in a Rabbit hole with Alice.
True. They know which side of the bread is buttered. But they will have to employ legal reasoning to arrive at their decision or it will not stand.
He is the Prime Minister, and he cannot be made use of by the Defense (read: Anwar) to make political speeches.- Scarlet
The judge can always restrict the questioning to Najib the citizen and not Najib the PM.
Only that looks real bad on FLOMs C.V.s – “Avoided court subpoena due to Irrelevancy”. In other words, Redundant.
The judge should be kicked out for this SNAFU, but then this flur has already survived 3 previous attempts.
They’ll need new jobs soon, you know.
I am not good at law. Isn’t it not our law is based on precedent. This is like setting a precedent. Others will ‘quote’ this judgement to not to testify in court…..am I right.?
Hey Scarlet, what about Rosie? Is she the PM too? Should be ok to question her right?
Don’t ask me. I was only looking into what must have gone on in the mind of the judge and laying it down for you guys so you could understand why he came to the conclusion which he did.
The judge can always restrict the questioning to Najib the citizen and not Najib the PM.
semper fi – October 6, 2011 at 10:29 pm
————————————-
Pak Semper is right. Counsel can always restrict the questioning or even prevent the asking of certain questions and if asked control any fallout, collateral damage etc. The trial judge can do the same. Any questioning would have to comply with the rule relating to relevancy.
If you’re a Perry Mason you would remember the familiar cries of “Objection. Irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent” from counsel.
D’accord, monsieur pimpernel. Je comprends.
ooops … Perry Mason fan
Why can’t the stupid judge strike off the Sodomy 2 Trial?
How can the judge strike off the prosecution’s case when there are triable issues. Once they are shown to be triable issues, it will go into trial proper when witnesses will be called by both sides and cross-examined, when we get to hear all the evidence not just from the prosecution but also the defense.
There was DNA found on the victim’s anus that the prosecution says belongs to the accused. The charge is sodomy. Clearly there are triable issues.
Consent is not a defense since consent is irrelevant to the issue of the offense of sodomy in Malaysia. So the defense in this case is that the offense did not take place as claimed. The DNA was indeed Anwar’s but was taken without his permission and planted there. That is the theory from the defense. It is their allegation and since it is the defense allegation the defense will have to prove it.
As in all sexual assault cases like rape, the defense strategy would be to destroy the credibility of the accuser. In this case the defense is also trying to prove conspiracy involving the Prime Minister.
Conspiracy is never easy to prove. In this case failure to prove conspiracy does not appear to be fatal to the defense case. There is enough evidence to win the case. All the defense needs to do is just cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case. Having said that we are dealing with the justice system in a corrupt third world country where it is left to the trial judge without the help of jurors. You cannot be sure which way it will go.
In the Amanda Knox case better known as the Foxy Knoxy case in Perugia, Italy the key evidence was the DNA found on the murder weapon. In the appeal, what was believed to be blood on the knife could not be said to be blood at all with any degree of finality. Without the DNA evidence on the knife, without the murder weapon (and without an apparent motive), the decision to convict her for murder had to be reversed.
That is Italy. This is Malaysia.
Can some kind soul make sense of what this Abnizar is saying here?? Because I cannot.
———————-
No pimpernel,
You still don’t get it when you say ” fishing expedition ” is an attempt by counsel to fish for information that could help them in their case….etc.
My point is slightly, but critically, something elase, which i’ve tried to put across a few times.
Do you realise that equally it MAY be risky to call a Witness ( whether a VIP or not ), because he may say something against the Accused in the witness box, and if that were to happen, its the Accused who has jeopardised his OWN case – he’s finished !
So, Accused with his trained Counsels will have to WEIGH very carefully, iistead of ” getting information”, the Accused ” spoils his own case – that’s why i said earlier its ” risky”.
But my real point was this : The Hon Judge ( as in UK) thinks wisely, that the Court ought not take the ” responsibility/risks” to decide on behalf of the Accd. That ” risk” is on the Accd himself. So the Hon Judge its the Accused person’s r ” legal right” at this stage to ” call whoever he wishes” and THIS RIGHT MUST EVEN PREVAIL in the face a VIP’s Application to be “excused”….No excuse whatso ever even if the VIP says in his Affidavit ” fishing expedition….” by the Accused.
With all these ” explainations” if you insist on still arguing here, my advice is ” Go and study law….” – sorry, it will save my breath, or else, you seek legal counsel yourself ( for you defence….)
Abnizar7 – October 6, 2011 at 4:45 pm
————————
Simple Scarlet.
The Judge has preempted everything, because you could see he already HAD in his mind from the very beginning Not to allow Defence/Accd to call PM/Wife as his defewnce witnesses…..
Come on, a little kid will know that this result is expected to be in favour of VIPs. ie : to be excused from attending as a witness : expected to be the decision, the whole world knows….as uf you cannot sense that !
My point is that like the Ausie ir UK Judge, they WILL say : No, you MUST ATTEND as Accd’s witness – whatever the outcome – its Accd’s inalienable right, his ” legal” right, but I cannot preempt him, his ” right” is paramount at this stage : ( judge says) : I would’nt know wihether its fishing for information, or VIP witness could even say things that might incriminatee himself : its his risk. So I hereby disallow your Application not to be a witness, you HAVE to attend, this is Court ! That’s Ausie Court.
Here, we already knew from the very beginning…
…. i mean, Accd takung risks, coz the VIP witnes could say things in Court that MIGHT incriminate the Accd himself – fishing for information , Accd may not get any information….but the point is its Accd’s right to get as his witness in Court, and a Judge must have the guts to OVER-RULE VIPs who offer excuses of : the defence is on a fishing expidition excuses.
i am comparing judges laaa here & overseas !
Pok Li,
Race is definitlely an issue here. Most malay judges are more stupid than their indian counterpart. And I’m a malay too like you.
Why do you think Zabidin can be a high court Judge and not Komathy Suppiah, who is just a session’s crt judge. Remember Komathy, the Judge who refused to transfer the case from the session’s crt to the High Crt. And Zabidin who is less intelligent than Komathy later ruled that the case should be transferred to his court. If this case is heard bf Komathy, she wold have thrown the case out at the close of the prosn’s case.
Most Indian judges are embarrassed with Agustinge paul who heard the Anwar’s corruption case and would like to correct public’s perception of indian judges. Unfortunately it is not so with the malay judges who cld be manipulated by umno. Let’s hope PR takes over the gov’t and this antics of malay judges wld be investigated and revealed. I’m sure few cld be charged u/d the penal code for judicial improprieties.
Sodomy 1 was heard bf another stupid malay judge, Ariffin Jaka. Sodomy 2 judge is just like Ariffin jaka. Just accept this. There is a quota on how many chinese and indian judges cld be appointed to the superior crt. Anw with this quota we have many stupid malay judges.
Lma,
Malay judges are not stupid. They are smart. They know how to play their cards right. Morality aside, cari makan is more important. You know how it is with the government. It’s not how good you are at your job that will give you a promotion. It’s how well you can “bodek”.
What has being Indian, Chinese and Malay gotta do with anything??
According to the tortured reasoning of one misguided soul who has had the benefit of public education at taxpayers expense, Indians make stupid judges but Malays make worse judges. They are stupid because they are Malays. He finds compelled by the workings of the same warped mind that announcing to others he is a Malay himself would take the sting of being a racist. He makes public his disdain for Malay judges because they are Malays. The next thing he will say is that he is proud to be a racist.
That gives us an insight into the workings of the same warped mind delivering judgements through convoluted reasoning.
The truth of the matter is members of the Bench and the Bar have for the most part buckled under the pressures exerted by their political masters, prostituting themselves to their demands and appear to have set aside the values and the rigorous training they have had as members of an honorable profession, their oath of office and their sworn duty to uphold justice.
One former Chief Justice says many would be judges have declined the offer of an attractive remuneration and the life style of what amounts to a rock star of the legal profession because their appointment would mean the loss of independence.
So this forum is only for PR supporters..? people like Lma who downgraded his own race just because he loved DSAI so much? …or maybe you’re not malay…just stirring the cup of tea perhaps…and that’s the most dangerous thing to do…be careful with your words bro …!
_____________
I do not support any politician. I support my country. You should be careful with your words. I am not irresponsible. I am for good governance. Are you not?–Din Merican
To Dino I hope this forum are free of racist words and statement…criticism of the bureaucrats for the better without racist jerk…
___________
I agree with you completely.–Din Merican
It is not because it is “Aussie judge or a U.K. judge” but the role of judges is that of an umpire and we look to him to enforce the rules. Sometimes he takes an active part and may himself question the witnesses.
The party calling the witness (prosecution or defense) could question the witness only on relevant issues raised during the trial, cross-examined by his or her opposite counsel. If counsel’s line of questioning suggests he is fishing for information, and questions asked are not relevant to the issue or issues raised, objection will be made and he will be stopped.
In this particular case, the witness is offered to the Defense. Prosecution is not calling him to the stand so he could then be crossed by the Defense. Cross examination is a tool which could be used to such devastating effect in the hands of an experienced advocate. It is the witness who is refusing to attend and a subpoena has been issued. In the application to strike, the judge must have looked at the questions the Defense has for this witness and decides that the Defense has no clear direction where they want to go with their line of questioning. The judge would appear to be mindful of the fact that the witness is no ordinary witness but the political adversary of the accused who is looking for an opportunity to score political points and the fact that he is also the country’s Prime Minister. How much that weighs with him in his decision, only the judge would be able to say.
Prosecution made a smart move by indicating that they are not calling him as their witness but instead offering him to the Defense so they could call him as their witness.
“Most malay judges are more stupid than their Indian counterpart.”
The bloghost allows racist slurs on his blog probably to allow readers to have their say but that didn’t happen. He should admonish the poster who posts racist comments. But that didn’t happen either.
najib,
can i see you for a scholarship?
saiful, wow you are so privileged.