A Travesty of Justice

A Travesty of Justice
Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, 16 January 1999

The decision of the judge in the Anwar Ibrahim trial to amend the original charges against him and to expunge certain testimonies from the court's records is a travesty of justice which has shocked and shamed the nation.

One, by amending the charges, acts of sexual misconduct which were originally presented as 'facts' are now treated as mere 'allegations.' Thus, the court has lowered the onus of proof. Wouldn't this make it easier for the prosecution to obtain a conviction since it will not have to prove the alleged sexual misconduct? Isn't this unjust to the accused who has been projected right through the trial as someone who had actually indulged in sodomy and illicit sex?

Two, having tarnished his reputation in this manner, the accused is now being prevented from defending himself against these unsubstantiated allegations in court. This is the consequence of Judge Augustine Paul's ruling that all testimony on Anwar's alleged sexual misconduct is irrelevant. Anwar's lawyers will not be able to challenge the so-called 'evidence' presented against him when they make their submission. There is no doubt at all, given their ability to probe the truth with such devastating effect, amply demonstrated in their superb cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, that the lawyers would have demolished the vicious, malicious allegations against the accused.

By denying him the right to rebut these allegations in court, Anwar is now in no position to clear his name through the legal process. The opportunity to vindicate oneself through the court system is an essential characteristic of a society founded upon the rule of law. There can be no rule of law if such a rudimentary principle of fairness is not adhered to. Indeed, the failure to uphold the rule of law in the Anwar case reveals the pathetic state of the Malaysian judiciary.

Three, if the Court had to amend the charges against Anwar and expunge testimony on his alleged sexual misconduct because of its irrelevance, why did the Attorney-General in the first instance bring those charges against the accused? If the Attorney-General did not have sufficient proof of the accused's sexual misconduct he should not have formulated the original charges as if they were 'facts'. Isn't it true that the AG himself has on a few occasions maintained that unless there is incontrovertible evidence a person should not be charged? And yet, in Anwar's case, as it is now obvious, the AG was prepared to take him to court simply because of 'mere allegations' of sexual misconduct. Does this show that the AG was careless or that he acted with malicious intent? Or, perhaps he was merely carrying out someone's orders?

Four, if the court itself now regards the accused's sexual misconduct as 'allegations' which cannot withstand judicial scrutiny, why did the Prime Minister as UMNO President tell the UMNO Supreme Council that he had convincing proof of Anwar's 'low morals' and persuade the party to sack him? In fact, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad told the whole nation in no uncertain terms that his former Deputy was a sodomist who also indulged in illicit sex. His Cabinet Ministers and UMNO leaders parroted his allegation as if it were some divine truth. Isn't it the height of irresponsibility for the Prime Minister and for his Ministers to smear and shame a former colleague on the basis of unproven allegations? Doesn't it reflect badly on their own moral integrity?

Five, it is only too apparent now -- after the amended charges and the purging of testimonies -- that court proceedings have been abused to scandalise the former Deputy Prime Minister. It appears that there has been a deliberate attempt to drag his name through filth by presenting sordid but unsubstantiated allegations in court. The purpose is clear: to destroy Anwar's political career. The use of the court for this purpose should be seen in the light of the manipulation of the mainstream media, especially the Malay and English dailies, to tarnish his reputation. The party machinery and certain state agencies are also being harnessed to the hilt to achieve the same goal.

The use of the court to destroy a political challenger or a political adversary by making wild allegations about his character is reminiscent of Stalin's 'show trials'. Josef Stalin, one of the Soviet Union's harshest dictators, saw his farcical trials as an effective tool for eliminating his opponents and consolidating his power. It is a pity that a lot of Malaysians are beginning to draw parallels between what Stalin did and what is happening in Malaysia now.

This is why in the ultimate analysis it is not Anwar Ibrahim who is on trial. It is Mahathir Mohamad who is on trial. It is the Attorney-General who is on trial. It is the Malaysian justice system that is in the dock.