The Federal Court was treated to a colourful presentation by opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s lead defence counsel, Gopal Sri Ram.

From “flying carpets” to “briyani” and “fairies”, the former Federal Court judge attempted to dismantle the prosecution’s case.

Focusing on the carpet on which the complainant claimed that the sodomy took place, Gopal said the police had seized a China silk carpet from unit 11-5-2 at the Damansara Desa condominium.

He then pointed out that the police also seized a strand of hair from another unit, 11-5-1.

Noting that the prosecutor claimed that the carpet was moved, Gopal quipped, "But I do not believe in flying carpets."

"There is no evidence that the carpet was moved,” he added.

Based on this point alone, the defence counsel argued that the sodomy incident did not take place as alleged by Anwar’s former aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

This, Gopal ( left ) argued, demolished the prosecution's case.

"Without the carpet, the prosecution cannot prove (its case)," he told the court.

 

On the expensive suit which the appellant had allegedly purchased for Saiful, Gopal questioned lead prosecutor Muhammad Shafee Abdullah if it was a “Brioni or brownie” suit, arguing that if the latter’s contention was to be believed, then “fairies also exist”.

This prompted the government-appointed prosecutor to stand up and reply that his team had listened to the transcript again.

Shafee said that it was a “Brioni” suit “and it sounded like Briyani".

"Yes," Gopal quipped in response, "But the Brioni suit costs more than Briyani".

He also pointed out that even Saiful's underwear had a brand label, but not the pants which was touted to be a “Brioni”.

Gopal also added his tale was not only about the 'Arabian Nights' or flying carpets.

Questioning Saiful’s credibility, Gopal argued that the complainant was “no ordinary boy”, stating that he had seduced a member of the prosecution team.

“My tale is real, on the alleged affair Saiful ( left ) had with DPP Farah Azlina Abdul Latif who was allegedly seduced to gather information.”

Farah was removed from the prosecution team mid-way in the prosecution's case.

'Coffee and curry puffs'

Contrary to the claim that the complainant had “idolised” Anwar, the defence lawyer said Saiful detested the opposition leader.

Citing the testimony by Najwan Halimi, another former aide of Anwar, Gopal said the complainant often posted photos of himself with political leaders with the BN emblem.

Saiful, he added, had also described Anwar as a “pemimpin munafik” (hypocrite leader) in the posts.

As for the “coffee and curry puffs”, Gopal questioned how these items were delivered when Saiful had testified that the door was locked.

Prior to Gopal, the children of the late Karpal Singh, who was Anwar’s former lead consel, took turns to rebut the prosecution.

Among others, Ram Karpal, Gobind Singh Deo and Sangeet Deo ( right ) focussed on the DNA evidence, arguing that the “Male Y” was not Anwar.

The lawyers also questioned the credibility of investigating officer Supt Jude B Pereira as well as the qualification of government chemist Seah Lay Hong.

It was also put forth to the court that the DNA evidence suggested that Saiful was sodomised by two people.

Gobind argued that there were attempts to connect the specimens from 'Male Y' to Anwar.

The High Court, he said, held that since Anwar was the sole occupant of the cell, Male Y must be him.

However, he added that somebody else could have had access to those items, which were a toothbrush, towel and mineral water bottle.

"It is a finding based on sole occupancy, but if there is a person with direct access to the cell, then how?" he asked.

Earlier, Sangeet suggested that the person who possessed the “allele 18", the other DNA found on Saiful, could be the perpetrator.

She concluded that the trial judge was right in initially not admitting the three items retrieved from the cell.

"Without these items there is no link to Anwar and this leads to the question who is Male Y," she said.

Prior to this, Ram Karpal argued that there is a real possibility the DNA samples had been tampered with and those supposedly retrieved from the three items could be different samples.

He also questioned the investigating officer’s action in opening the plastic bag containing the samples.

Describing this case as one “riddled with doubt”, Ramkarpal also said that it was not a coincidence that Saiful met Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.

He said Saiful met Najib at his office and had  ‎asked for a recommendation to be a pilot. “Saiful was certainly a special boy as he met Najib not only at his office but also at his house,” remarked Gopal.

The lawyer also drew laughter from those present with his “dinosaur” remark.

He said the defence did not dispute that DNA could be retained for thousands of years as with dinosaurs, which was well documented.

"But what is in question is that this sample is not found in the dinosaur’s anus," he added.

Related stories

Gopal: No reason for Dr Osman to side with Anwar

Shafee to cite Anwar for contempt

Pepper spray goes off as Anwar exits court

And winner of 'guess underwear size' quiz is...

PKR urging anarchy, says Gerakan