DPP Farah Azlina Latif and Sodomy II complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan "should submit separate affidavits" to clarify the allegation on their alleged affair.

In making this call, Anwar Ibrahim’s lead counsel Karpal Singh said they are duty-bound to clarify the allegation which emerged on the Malaysia Today website.

NONE"The prosecution's answer is neither an acknowledgement or denial. Based on this, we are certain there is an affair and it is up to them to deny (the allegation)," he said outside the Kuala Lumpur High Court today.

He also said the entire prosecution team, led by solicitor general II Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden, has been compromised or tainted because of the claim.

For this reason, he argued that the sodomy charge should be struck out.

Karpal said Farah is in violation of Section 8(1) of the Official Secrets Act and that Saiful is in violation of Section 8(2) of the same law. These provisions concern wrongful communication of secret documents.

Anwar has lodged a police report at the Kuala Lumpur court complex in Jalan Duta.

Earlier today, his lawyers had submitted notice to strike out the charge in the Kuala Lumpur High Court. An affidavit from Anwar was submitted in support of this.

‘Personal knowledge?’

Yusof, when asked to comment, shot the question back at Anwar and his lawyers.

"This is a bare allegation and there is no substance (to the claim). Do they have personal knowledge (about the alleged affair)?" he asked.

NONEYusof (right) said he would look into whether or not there is a need to reply to Anwar's affidavit.

Last week, attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail had removed Farah from the prosecution team and Prosecution Division.

Saiful and Farah were conspicuous by their absence from today's proceedings, which saw the trial being postponed to Aug 9. Also missing is Saiful's father Azlan Mohd Lazim who has been a permanent feature in court proceedings.

Karpal added that there was a strong likelihood of Saiful being privy to such recorded statements during the course of the investigations, including those from Anwar and the other potential witnesses.

azlanHe said as Farah was privy to such documents through being part of the prosecution team, she had access to the investigation papers.

“We are saying the entire prosecution team or its integrity had been compromised,” the senior lawyer said.

“This position is unprecedented elsewhere, and we are of the view the charge against Anwar should amount to a discharge. It's scandalous that a DPP chooses to have an affair with the star witness of the prosecution.”

Questioned whether the defence had evidence the DPP and Saiful were having an affair, Karpal said as far as they were concerned there is no denial as well as the fact that the attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail had come out with a statement removing her from the prosecution team.

“The is no denial by the DPP concerned, there is no denial by Saiful. They have an opportunity to reply to the affidavit filed by Anwar. The fact remains there is an allegation and there has been no reply.”

“We said there is an affair, and the effect is that the AG has named the DPP concerned. So there must be a basis for the allegation. The AG has transferred the DPP elsewhere. There is a clear question of an abuse of the court process,” said Karpal.

Karpal: We are not delaying matters

Karpal said the defence will wait for the reply from Farah, Saiful and also the prosecution if there is any.

“This matter supports our proposition from the beginning that the charge is false and this was politically motivated. It is something unprecedented,” he said.

Questioned whether the move taken can be seen as a delaying tactic, Karpal said this (allegation over Farah and Saiful) is a serious matter and to institute the charge is clearly an abuse of the court process.

“There is no question of a delaying tactic. Until Friday, we were trying to get a response from the Attorney-General’s Chambers. There was no positive response and as a result we had to file this application this morning.

“This is a serious matter. How can you say it is a delaying tactic. This is something that concerns fundamental rights and something which the court has to grapple with whether it likes it or not,” he said.