Jailed ex-deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim has claimed that the Court of Appeal's written judgment in dismissing his appeal against a sodomy conviction reeked of "deception and fraud and utter contempt for the truth".

In a press statement released through his lawyer Sankara Nair today, he also alleged that the 200-page judgment delivered by justices Pajan Singh Gill, Richard Malanjum and Hashim Yusoff was "totally devoid of any legal substance".

The appellate court had delivered its oral decision on April 18 to dismiss the appeal by Anwar and his adopted brother Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja against their conviction and sentencing for sodomising Anwar's former driver, Azizan Abu Bakar.

Anwar and Sukma were convicted and jailed for nine and six years respectively by the High Court in 2001. The latter was also ordered to be given four strokes of the rotan.

The Court of Appeal then followed up with its grounds of judgment on Aug 23, in which it said there was no substantial miscarriage of justice in the earlier trial.

Alibi notice

Anwar also raised several issues that the Court of Appeal had failed to raise in its judgment.

One of them, he said, was the manner in which the court had attempted to 'hoodwink' the public into believing that he had not filed a notice of alibi.

This alibi issue was a main bone of contention at the appeal stage with Anwar submitting that the trial judge had not accepted his alibi defence on the grounds that he had not filed a proper notice.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the prosecution and the trial judge, ruling that the ex-deputy premier could not adduce his alibi defence.

However, Anwar insisted that he had filed such a notice and this was a "matter of incontrovertible public record and can be verified".

"This in itself, I dare say, is where the judges has blatantly overstepped judicial bounds - to the outright borders of committing judicial deception," he said.

Anwar also questioned the manner in which the appellate judges had addressed the issue of the alleged role played by two senior prosecutors in attempting to fabricate evidence against him in his earlier corruption trial.

This issue was also raised before the Court of Appeal in this sodomy trial as the two prosecutors were again involved in this appeal. One of them was the present Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail.

"The cavalier manner in which the judges addressed the role of the two prosecutors who were caught red-handed is most deplorable.

"Any self-respecting judge would have treated the matter with the utmost concern," said Anwar.

Other issues

Other issues raised included the inconsistencies found in the statements of prosecution witnesses, the changing of dates on the alleged commission of offences and the judge's acceptance of the amendments, as well questions surrounding the credibility of Azizan as a prosecution witness.

Anwar said the three judges also failed to weigh other factors, such as questions surrounding Justice Ariffin Jaka's (photo) - the trial judge for the sodomy case - financial relationship with Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's son, Mirzan and the 'harshness' and 'cruelty' of the sentences.

He also questioned as to why the written judgment did not scrutinise 'the unprecedented ordering of the commencement of sentence from date of conviction,' whereas he iterated that sentencing would normally begin from the date of arrest.

The fact that he was found guilty despite evidence to the contrary and other procedural 'miscarriages of justice' only lent strength to his conviction that the charges were merely designed to destroy his political future, he claimed.

"Can there be any question therefore to the widespread perception of the public that they were handpicked, servile and compliant judges who have now been promptly and generously rewarded with promotions?"

"It is pathetic and an utter travesty that these judges have wantonly sold their souls for worldly gains, failing to recognise the fact that they will still have to account for it someday!" he concluded.