Mystery witness to testify tomorrow

A mystery witness is scheduled to take the stand tomorrow to testify in Anwar Ibrahim's defence in the Sodomy II trial.

The defence team was tight-lipped as to the identify of the individual, even when asked by the prosecution and the court.

Defence lawyer Sankara Nair (left) would only say that the person will testify after Chemistry Department director-general Lim Kong Boon.

Met outside court, Sankara said the witness is not an alibi witness and is not on the prosecution list.

"I cannot reveal the name of the person or who it is, for fear that (the person) may be pressured between now and tomorrow," he said.

"This is our witness. All I can say is the witness will come tomorrow to testify."

The defence team had indicated at a previous session of the hearing that an additional witness would testify.

In addition, spine specialist Dr Thomas Hoogland, who had operated on Anwar's back in 2004, will also testify on Thursday.

The mystery witness cannot be PKR president and Anwar's wife, Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, as she is always in the courtroom.

The person also cannot be complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan's sister, Saidati, as she is also in the prosecution witness list.

Lim is expected to take the stand first where he will be questioned on to the accreditation of the forensic lab of the Chemistry Department.

He was the prosecution's material witness in the 1998 sodomy trial and testified with regards to DNA from the mattress. However Lim's evidence was not accepted in the trial.

Relevant and material witnesses

Today, lawyer Hisyam Teh Poh Teik submitted that Anwar's defence had to show that Najib and Rosmah were relevant material witnesses for them to be called to the stand.

He said they had to show the evidence of the relevancy of Najib's and Rosmah's testimony as the prime minister only met Saiful (left) two days before the alleged sodomy incident.

"In every case, the onus is on the party issuing the subpoena to show the materiality of the witness for the just decision of the case, in that it outweighs any oppression that may be caused to the party objecting," he said,

The lawyer from Johor also provided instances where subpoena can be set aside or struck out based on section 136 of the Evidence Act 1950 when the evidence sought to be introduced is not material and relevant, there is no useful result obtained and the court considers it an abuse of the court process.

He went on to cite the PP vs Anwar case in 1999 where the party did not have any automatic right to call a witness and the court was duty bound to inquire into the relevancy of the proposed witness.

Quoting from Najib's affidavit in support to the set-aside, Hisyam said his client has stated he cannot give any relevant information to the case.

"I am told by my lawyers that the sodomy incident was on June 26, 2008 and I stress the meeting with Saiful was two days before the sodomy incident when he came to my house in Taman Duta. In the meeting, Saiful told me he was sodomised by the first respondent (Anwar)," read Hisyam from Najib's affidavit.

Hence, the lawyer argued that Najib (left) was not able to testify to anything relevant on his meeting with Saiful as it occurred before the said incident.

Najib also stressed he did not know at all and was not informed by Saiful, regarding the June 26, 2008 sodomy incident and that he did not meet Saiful after June 24, 2008, or prior to that.

"I further deny that there is a conspiracy by my wife and me to create the sodomy charge. I also had not given any directives or conspired with others to create false evidence towards Anwar with regards to the charge."

Hisyam further stated that Anwar's application was merely a "fishing expedition" to gather more information and the defence had not shown any evidence that it would help them.

On Rosmah, Hisyam said the defence wanted further clarification on her meeting with Saiful's friend Muhammad Rahimi Osman and on a statement made by her under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code to investigating officer DSP Jude Blacious Pereira.

"For me the first respondent has failed to show any nexus or connection with the primary fact in issue; that is whether the defence can raise a reasonable doubt to the act of sodomy on June 26, 2008.

"Hence, as it stands, the subpoena applications cannot pass the twin tests of relevancy and materiality and hence the applications should not be allowed," he said.

Hisyam further contended that the rightful witnesses to be called are the alibi witnesses.

"They are the ones whom should be called. Not the premier and Rosmah."

Saiful's state of mind

While the prosecution supported Najib and Rosmah's applications, Karpal Singh appearing for Anwar , told the court that Najib is being called as the defence wants to know Saiful's state of mind when the two met.

"It is interesting to note that the prime minister admits meeting with Saiful at his residence two days before June 26, and that the discussion took half an hour although the respondent's contention is that it took one hour," said Karpal (right).

"Even half hour is quite a period and we want to know what transpired during this time. The prime minister is in a position to give relevant material evidence. If what he says is correct, this will impinge on Saiful's credibility.

"This is because Najib had advised Saiful to lodge a police report but he (Saiful) then subjects himself to the alleged sodomy and it is mind boggling he lodged a police report two days later.

"Saiful's credibility would be seriously and gravely affected if the prime minister is required to give evidence in court pursuant to the subpoena issued."

"It is necessary to obtain evidence from the PM with regard to Saiful's state of mind and whether he was frightened or whether the PM expected the complainant to follow his advice," he said.

This, Karpal asserted, was relevant and material as it did not constitute an abuse of the court process nor an oppression against the PM.

The senior lawyer who is also Bukit Gelugor MP, said Najib's evidence would be relevant and material more so coming from an upright and devout Muslim holding the centre stage of local and international politics.

"His evidence would go a long way to assist Anwar and the court. Najib himself swore at the Permatang Pauh campaign in August 2008 that he did nothing to Altantuya (Shaariibuu)."

Karpal further submitted that what transpired in a meeting between Rosmah (right) and Rahimi would be relevant in Anwar's defence.

Unfortunately, he said Rosmah declined to be interviewed by the defence leading to the necessity for a subpoena for her presence in court.

"The Section 112 statement has not been made available to the defence, as it is considered a privileged document and there can be no right to inspect such a document," said Karpal who stressed that Najib and Rosmah's evidence was relevant and material to the defence.
.
"Their evidence would be useful to ensure a just decision in Anwar's trial," he concluded.

'Anwar fishing for info from Najib, Rosmah'