“She could be telling the truth, but for those who have not heard it is rather unusual. For those in the peninsula it is quite usual, although some still don’t know about it. She is talking about her experience with Anwar and (Umi Hafilda’s brother and PKR deputy president) Azmin (Ali), so voters can make the right judgment about PKR leaders ,” he said.
However, he said, Umi Hafilda is not an official BN campaigner and had come on her own accord.
He also said that it is not a stretch to expect the opposition to fly in members of the youth wings from PAS and PKR to create trouble on polling day, especially for constituencies where the opposition is not confident of winning.
Muhyiddin also denied all allegations of vote-buying by Sarawak PKR chief Baru Bian who claims that votes are being bought for several thousand ringgit per voter in Ba’Kelalan, saying that the BN has always stuck to the rules.
Fernando had earlier read out Azmin Ali’s (Ummi’s brother) testimony in court that proved she played an active role in the whole conspiracy.
The prosecution never called her to testify in court to rebut this allegation, added Fernando. Instead they expected the defence to call her. The judge, in fact, even mentioned this point in his written judgment. “But Ummi would have been a hostile witness so it should have been up to the prosecution and not the defence to call her,” argued Fernando.Fernando said that the court should have invoked Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act on the prosecution for failing to call a most crucial witness to testify in court.
Fernando then took the court through the testimony of Raja Kamaruddin Raja Wahid, a.k.a Raja Komando, who had, in fine detail, revealed how the conspiracy against Anwar originally unfolded and the role he was given in this whole conspiracy.
“The evidence of this witness will show he was invited to join the conspiracy with a view to topple the Deputy Prime Minister,” said Fernando.
“The meeting was held in the office of Aziz Samsuddin, the Prime Minister’s Political Secretary, on 26 June 1998.”
In the meeting, revealed Fernando, Aziz confirmed that Ummi and Azizan would pose no problem as “Ummi is a prostitute”.Raja Komando then asked Aziz whether there was any other way to bring Anwar down.According to Raja Komando, “Aziz replied sodomy would be the best way. Other ways would have no affect.”“Raja Komando’s role was to manage the political assassination part of the exercise,” added Fernando. “The sodomy allegation was assigned to Ummi and Azizan.”
“Raja Komando was to disseminate the allegation as far and wide as possible. He was also to spread word that Anwar is a CIA agent.”From what Fernando told the court today, it was clearly established in the meeting Raja Komando had with Aziz Samsuddin that he (Aziz) was the Chief Conspirator and that, while Ummi had written the purported “Azizan” letter to the Prime Minister accusing Anwar of sodomy, Aziz was the one who had edited and redrafted it.
The letter, Fernando said, was based on the book “50 Reasons Why Anwar Cannot be PM” – which somehow found its way into the attaché bags of almost 2,000 delegates at the Umno General Assembly that year.“The judge did not give this evidence the weight it deserved,” argued Fernando. “He erred, grossly.”“If he had given the evidence the weight it deserved, would he have arrived at the judgment he did?”And what about the tragedies befalling the rest of the gang of conspirators? Remember what happened to Aziz Samsuddin, Dr Ristina Majid, Megat Junid, Mohtar Abdullah, Ummi Hafilda Ali, Azizan Abu Bakar, Hamzah Zainuddin, Rahim Thamby Chik, Daim Zainuddin, etc.?
The only two remaining yet to hit the dirt are the AG and the IGP. These two are still awaiting judgment on earth. And when it comes it will come hard and brutal. So stay tuned to see how the remaining scumbags find their faces hitting the shit in time to come
The 44-year old sister of one of Anwar’s staunchest assistants Azmin Ali has been going around the nation badmouthing the Opposition Leader, her own brother, sister-in-law and niece.
Yet Umi sees nothing wrong in slapping a suit on her ex-business partner when he threatened to do the same to her – which is to tour the country and wash her dirty linen.
If both were to set up stall at side-by-side venues, few Malaysians have any doubts that the crowds would throng Nor Azman’s “ceramah” rather than hers.
After all, he can be counted to talk about how it was like to sleep with her in 1998 when she was just 31 years old, while she can only hope to draw fresh laughter with her protestations of virginity.
Nor Azman is also bound to rehash what he told the court in 2001 that Umi had offered to give his ex-wife RM200,000 so that Umi and him could get married and elope to London. Nor Azman was not only married but also had two children at that time.
Umi has previously denied Nor Azman’s allegations, which also included a RM10 million advertising deal from a Tourism ministry unit.
She also denied she was taking legal action because she was afraid Nor Azman would smear her with his proposedceramah tour.
Coincidentally, PKR is finalising a D.N.A or Datuk Najib Altantuya tour and there has been talk about combining it with the Nor Azman tell-all.
Fears have run high in the Umno camp that with such a star-studded lineup led by the PM himself, his alleged but murdered ex-mistress Altantuya, his current and overly ambitious wife Rosmah Mansor, a still-virile Nor Azman and a still pretty Umi, the PKR ceramah might become too popular and lift Anwar off onto a new wave of mass popularity.
Meanwhile, in her 18-page statement, Umi claims Nor Azman and Malaysiakini’s March 15,2010 article implied:
Ummi confesses to being the architectthe Anwar sodomy allegation; a purely fabricated charge
During the earlier trial, it was revealed that the Special Branch tried to convince Anwar to “take action” but that Anwar refused, until pressed further by the Director who said it was “for the sake of national security” before Anwar agreed that action be taken.
In a new twist to the Anwar Saga, it was revealed that Ummi Hafilda Ali was the architect behind the accusation that Anwar had sodomised Azizan Abu Bakar. And, for this, she was disowned by her father just months before he died of a broken heart.
Christopher Fernando told the Kuala Lumpur Appeal Court that Said Awang, the Director of the Special Branch, went to meet Azmin Ali, Ummi’s brother, who was then Anwar’s Chief Private Secretary, to solicit his (Azmin’s) assistance to persuade Ummi to retract the allegation that Anwar had sodomised Azizan.
What is most interesting by this revelation is that:
1. Said Awang went to meet Azmin BEFORE he met Anwar. Therefore, the allegation that Anwar had abused his position by summoning the Special Branch, and that he asked them to force Ummi and Azizan to withdraw the sodomy allegation, is a fallacy. In fact, it was not Anwar who summoned Said Awang to see him, but the Special Branch Director who took the initiative to meet Anwar.
2. The idea to persuade Ummi and Azizan to retract the sodomy allegation came from the Special Branch and not Anwar. During the earlier trial, it was revealed that the Special Branch tried to convince Anwar to “take action” but that Anwar refused, until pressed further by the Director who said it was “for the sake of national security” before Anwar agreed that action be taken.
3. The Special Branch was fully aware that it was Ummi who was behind the sodomy allegation and that Azizan was merely the instrument to the whole thing. That was why they wanted Azmin, her brother, to try to persuade Ummi to retract the allegation.
This sheds light on the previous day’s proceedings where Fernando revealed that Azizan testified three times, under oath, that Anwar never sodomised him – an admission that took even the trial judge aback.
Fernando related how Said went to meet Azmin to request a meeting with Anwar Ibrahim. In the meeting with Azmin, Said asked him whether Ummi is his sister and Azmin confirmed so.
Said Awang then asked Azmin whether he was able to persuade his sister to withdraw the sodomy allegation against Anwar but Azmin replied that would be impossible as he no longer talked to his sister since the allegation surfaced.
The Special Branch was aware that Ummi was behind the accusation and was, in fact, the plotter of the whole thing. And, the period when this discussion with Azmin was going on, the Special Branch had not met Anwar yet.
Azmin then called the family together to discuss the issue. In all, three meetings were held that included Ummi herself.
Ummi at first denied she had written the letter to the Prime Minister
accusing Anwar of sodomy. Azmin then advised his sister to steer clear of the conspiracy, and that was when she admitted this would be impossible to do as she had been promised money and contracts for her role and, in fact, money had already changed hands.
Ummi later confessed to her father her involvement in the conspiracy and that it was actually she who had written the letter to the Prime Minister. The father, a religious teacher, then disowned her and, soon after, died of a broken heart, never forgiving his daughter for what she had done.
A defence witness in the sodomy trial of jailed former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim told the High Court today that he had sex with star prosecution witness Ummi Hafilda Ali.
“I had sex with Ummi in London,” said Norazman Abdullah @ Baginda anak Minda to the murmurs of those seated in the public gallery.
The 40-year-old Iban told judge Arifin Jaka that he had known Ummi since 1992 but their relationship only became close when they were in London in June 1998, together with businessman and former MP S’ng Chee Hua (who was Norazman’s boss then) and another friend.
“When we returned to Malaysia, Ummi told me that she would give my ex-wife RM200,000 so that we (Ummi and I) could get married and elope to London,” Norazman said, adding that he was then married with two children.
“Ummi also told me that I would have a 25 percent share in a RM10 million advertising project,” he added.
Ummi, who made court appearances during Anwar’s corruption trial last year in designer attire and matching accessories, had told the press that she “is still a virgin”.
She, together with former driver of Anwar’s wife, Azizan Abu Bakar, wrote letters to Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad alleging Anwar had committed sexual misconduct.
They later retracted their allegations and said they wrote the letters under coercion and on “mere suspicion”.
“In the beginning, Ummi told me that the sodomy allegations against Anwar were true. But later, after our relationship became closer, she confessed that they were all fabricated,” Norazman said.
He also told the court this morning that Ummi told him she “forced” Azizan to confess that he was sodomised by Anwar.
“Ummi told me that she did it because she hated Anwar and her brother Azmin Ali as they both did not give her any business projects.
“She also said that when Anwar was toppled from power, she will get an advertising project at Kuala Lumpur International Airport worth RM10 million from Tun Daim Zainuddin (business tycoon turned finance minister),” Norazman said.
He, however, added that he did not ask Ummi how she forced Azizan to make the confession.
Norazman, who is now a farmer, also told the court that while they were in London, Ummi had told him that Mahathir was the man behind the “50 Dalil: Mengapa Anwar Tidak Boleh Jadi Perdana Menteri” (“50 Reasons Why Anwar Cannot Become Prime Minister”) book.
“She also told me that Daim, (former Malacca chief minister) Rahim Tamby Chik and (Umno executive secretary) Tengku Adnan Mansor were involved in the fabrication of the sodomy charges in the book,” he said, in response to a question from defence counsel Gurbachan Singh.
According to Norazman, Ummi also told him that Khaled Jeffri was the writer of the book while (former finance minister) Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Daim and Tengku Adnan were the sponsors.
He added that Ummi called him one night in August 1998, and said that her father had disowned her because she had given false information for the contents of the book.
“Ummi called one night and said that she could not sleep and wanted to meet me as her father had chased her out of the house,” he said.
Ummi’s brother Azmin Ali, who was also Anwar’s former private secretary and now state assemblyman for Hulu Klang, had testified earlier that Ummi is not the person she portrays herself to be and was disowned by her father in late 1998 “for running away with a married man overseas.” (“[#1]Ummi eloped with a married man, says Azmin[/#]“, April 7.)
Norazman also told the court that Ummi told him that she had written a letter to Mahathir but the contents (of the letter) were later amended by Aziz Shamsuddin, who was then the political secretary to the Prime Minister.
Meanwhile, the prosecution refused to cross-examine the witness, saying that his evidence was merely hearsay.
Lead prosecutor Abdul Gani Patail told the judge: “Unless and if Ummi is called to testify, this evidence is all useless.”
The court will resume on Friday as Anwar’s lawyers said that the rest of their witnesses, including Daim, deputy education minister Aziz, former consumer affairs minister Megat Junid Megat Ayob and his wife Ziela Jalil would only be called in if Mahathir was allowed to testify in the trial.
Arifin yesterday said that he would announce his decision on the application for Mahathir’s testimony in court on Friday. The defence and prosecution had argued over the relevance of the prime minister’s evidence for more than three weeks.
Anwar, currently serving a six-year jail term for corruption, is on trial for sodomy and sexual misconduct.
He and his adopted brother Sukma Dermawan are charged with sodomising Azizan at Sukma’s apartment on “one night at 7.45pm, between January and March, 1993″.
Anwar has repeatedly denied all charges and said they were fabricated by political rivals to end his political career.
It was clear, from the testimony in court, that Azizan’s letter to the Prime Minister had been written by Ummi. Ummi had confessed to this. Azizan, in turn, during the course of the trial, admitted that Anwar did not sodomise him.
However, when the defence tried to bring up this very crucial bit of evidence during the trial, the trial judge disallowed it. The judge refused to allow the letter to be admitted as evidence or to allow Ummi to be called to court to testify.
Ummi’s role in this whole thing was clear and indisputable. The fact the sodomy accusation against Anwar was false was apparent. Just before he died, Ummi’s father wrote an open letter to Harakah, an opposition newspaper, explaining the whole matter and, in no uncertain terms, accused his daughter of involvement in the conspiracy to frame Anwar and of being the person who wrote the letter to the Prime Minister.
Had the judge allowed this crucial bit of evidence to be admitted, argued Fernando, it would have changed the entire complexion of the case and the judge would have been hard-pressed to find Anwar guilty.
Attempt after attempt was made to frame Anwar of sexual misconduct charges; and Pak Lah is involved too
“There was an evil plot to secure a conviction through devious means,” said Christopher Fernando on the second day of Anwar’s appeal hearing in the Kuala Lumpur Appeal Court.
Fernando then told the court that attempt after attempt was made to frame Anwar on sexual misconduct charges.
One such case was Dr. Munawar Ahmad Anees, then one of Anwar’s speech writers, who was arrested and subjected to physical and mental torture to force him to admit he had a homosexual relationship with Anwar.
Fernando then took the court through the lengthy Affidavit signed by Dr Munawar on 7 November 1998 that detailed the experience he went through at the hands of the Malaysian police.
The torture he endured finally broke him and he admitted to the ‘crime’, which he later retracted in his Affidavit.
Fernando then brought the court’s attention back to the Manjeet Singh Dhillon matter that was raised in court yesterday to emphasis his point of yet another attempt to frame Anwar.
At this point, Fernando called upon the court to recommend a Royal Commission of Inquiry be established to investigate Manjit Singh Dhillon’s serious allegation against Abdul Gani Patail and Azhar Mohamad as this is a most serious matter affecting the administration of justice and the rule of law.
“If they are found not to be involved in extorting fabricated evidence, then their names will be cleared,” said Fernando. “It will be to their benefit.”
“If they are involved, then they ought to be brought to justice. That is the only way to resolve this pressing problem and to restore public confidence.”
Clearly there was a concerted effort to frame Anwar. But these attempts were not confined to Malaysia. It also extended to the shores of the US as well, argued Fernando. One case in point was an incident involving Jamal Abder Rahman.
“We are trying to show a pattern, how witnesses were approached to give fabricated evidence and these efforts extended beyond the shores of Malaysia to the US,” said Fernando.
Jamal is an American citizen of Arab descent who operates a limousine service in Washington DC and had a contract to provide limousine services to the Malaysian Embassy in Washington.
In September 1998, soon after Anwar’s dismissal and subsequent arrest, a Malaysian Diplomat, Mustapha Ong, asked Jamal to declare that he had procured women and young boys for Anwar.
“A witness who constantly changes his stand means he is lying,” argued Karpal. “And yet the judge declared that Azizan’s testimony is ‘as strong as the Rock of Gibraltar’.”
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
“The prosecution not only wanted their pound of flesh, it also wanted a pint of blood”
Karpal Singh continued where he left off on Wednesday, 26 March 2003, by emphasising that Section 402A of the Criminal Procedure Code is mandatory and there is absolutely no discretion in the matter.
The Kuala Lumpur Appeal Court was told that the date on the charge against Anwar was amended twice; from ‘May 1994’, to ‘May 1992’, then to ‘one day from1 January 1993 to 31 March 1993’. The defence had asked for a postponement to allow it time to file its notice of alibi but the court did not grant this ten-day grace that it should have under the law.
“This violated Article 5(1) of the Constitution,” argued Karpal. “Dato Seri Anwar was deprived of his right under the law.”
Karpal said the trial judge had acted prejudicial and irredeemable and he ought not to have sanctioned the prosecution of Anwar.
Karpal then asked the court to consider setting aside the judgement against Anwar.
On the credibility of the prosecution’s star witness, Azizan Abu Bakar, Karpal said Azizan gave five conflicting statements at different points of time.
Azizan’s statement was recorded under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code and, under this section of the code, a person whose statement is being recorded:
1. Must answer all questions posed to him. (He/she cannot refuse to answer any question).
2. Must tell the truth. (He/she cannot lie).
3. Anything he/she says can be used against him/her. (Including cited for perjury if he/she lies).
Azizan, who had his statement recorded over five different dates from August 1997 until June 1999, however, kept changing his stand.
“A witness who constantly changes his stand means he is lying,” argued Karpal. “And yet the judge declared that Azizan’s testimony is ‘as strong as the Rock of Gibraltar’.”
“Far from it!” said Karpal.
“The duty of the prosecutor is not to obtain a conviction but to administer justice.”
“The role of the prosecutor should exclude the notion of winning or losing.”
Karpal said that since Azizan made five conflicting statements at different points of time, this “made an improbability of what actually happened.”
As for the fact that Anwar was charged in 1999 for an event that was alleged to have happened in 1993, the six years delay would have reduced his opportunity of preparing a proper defence.
“Memories fail with time erasing the ability to recollect happenings six years ago,” said Karpal. “A fair trial could not be achieved with such a long time lapse.”
“Under section 402A, Dato Seri Anwar’s trial should never have taken place. This is a serious miscarriage of justice.”
“Your Lordships are bound to rule that Section 402A has been infringed.”
The Bench and Karpal then engaged in a debate as to the notice of alibi which, according to the Bench, is to the benefit of the prosecution.
Karpal argued that it did not matter as to whose benefit the notice of alibi may be. It is something mandatory and not something the judge could use his discretion to rule. The defence had made a request for a postponement but the trail judge denied the request.
“The judge did not do his duty. He should have stopped the trial and all the evidence should have been ruled inadmissible.”
Karpal then related how the defence had applied for a postponement to allow the investigating officer to investigate Anwar’s alibi. The Attorney-General then, Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah, stood up to say he had no objections to the postponement.
“However, after lunch, the AG turned turtle and raised an objection.”
Even the judge had declared that the police should investigate the alibi. “Then, later, he turned round and said that it is their choice, that it was their discretion if they choose to do so.
“The judge said that it was the prosecution’s own funeral if they do not challenge the defence’s alibi.”
Karpal then told the court that the judge had stated that corroboration is necessary. He then turned around and said he was prepared to accept Azizan’s testimony without corroboration though Azizan was an unreliable testimony who perjured himself many times.
“Corroboration is necessary. But, if a witness is unreliable, then, even if his testimony is corroborated, it still cannot be accepted and should be rejected.”
Karpal then took the court through Azizan’s close proximity (khalwat) case in the Alor Gajah Syariah Court. Because of this case, Azizan’s credibility as a witness had been destroyed.
Azizan said he had revealed the alleged sodomy incident because of his “duty and honour as a Muslim.”
Karpal said the defence then requested to recall Azizan as a witness to reassess his credibility. The judge, however, would not allow it.
“You can put a label of a thoroughbred on a horse,” said Karpal. “But a donkey is still a donkey.”
“The judge was not only scraping the bottom of the barrel. He was scraping the outer bottom of the barrel.”
The investigation officer had testified that Azizan’s testimony had no contradictions. “Then why amend the date on the charge?” asked Karpal.
“Was the judge judicially honest in arriving at the decision that Azizan is a reliable witness who did not perjure himself?”
Karpal then said that medical evidence is prime evidence. “Why was Azizan not sent for a medical examination? This could have corroborated Azizan’s testimony.”
“The investigation officer admitted that there was still time to send Azizan for a medical examination.”
“The judge swallowed the evidence hook line and sinker.”
“Allegations of sodomy can easily be made but are very difficult to prove. The evidence therefore must be very convincing.”
In any trial, there is the prosecution’s case and the defence’s case. But Dato Seri Anwar was denied his constitutional right to a proper defence. Anwar, therefore, had only half a trial – which means he had no trial.
Karpal then asked the court to allow Anwar’s appeal and set aside the conviction.
“Anwar’s prosecution, in fact, ought not to have commenced right from the word go. No man properly trained in the law would have done what the AG (then) had done.”
“The prosecution not only wanted their pound of flesh. It also wanted a pint of blood.”
“Azizan’s evidence has turned to stardust.”
Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has described the Malay community as victims of fear-mongering tactics by the Malay-language media as well as taken in by the so-called benefits for the Bumiputras.
“Malay society is influenced by the Malay media to fear others.
“As if we’re poor because of the Chinese, our house is dirty because of the Chinese, the roads are not fixed, Chinese, no money, prices of goods going up, the Chinese and the Christians,” the PKR de facto leader said at the launch of the Urban Renewal Project in Taman Maju Jaya here.
The latest controversy to rile the country’s dominant majority was the “Christian Malaysia” report first published by the Umno newspaper Utusan Malaysia last Saturday.
The Umno daily carried a front-page article headlined “Kristian agama rasmi?” (Christianity the official religion?), claiming the DAP was conspiring with Christian leaders to take over Putrajaya and abolish Islam as the religion of the federation.
Utusan Malaysia’s report had been based entirely on unsubstantiated blog postings by two pro-Umno bloggers, alleging that the leaders had taken a pledge during the gathering promising to take over Putrajaya, abolish Islam as the religion of the federation and install a Christian prime minister.
The paper also published a grainy photograph showing what it described as a secret pact between the DAP and pastors at a hotel in Penang last Wednesday.
DAP and Christian leaders have since voiced their rage over the allegations and vehemently denied taking any part in such a pledge.
The Permatang Pauh MP also said that the government had been painting a rosy picture of the country’s economy, yet the people had not felt the economy boom.
“They say foreign investment keeps on coming, then there are the landmark buildings, the twin towers, but for the residents, for the workers, what does development mean to us at the bottom? What do we get?
“If the rakyat do not reap the benefits, no matter how many billions are being made, how many booming companies there may be, in 20 years, we will still remain the same,” he said.
The former deputy prime minister pointed out that only a minority of the Bumiputras had reaped the benefits of the specially allotted shares under the New Economic Policy (NEM).
“I want to ask how much Bumiputera shares since the New Economic Policy (NEM) till now, RM5.4 billion for Bumiputras but which Bumiputras? Aren’t the Bumiputras in Maju Jaya Bumiputra as well?” he asked, claiming that the money had gone to crony companies and family members of political leaders.
Anwar’s PKR leads Pakatan Rakyat (PR) which denied Barisan Nasional (BN) its customary two-thirds parliamentary majority and cost it four states in Election 2008.
BN’s dominant partner Umno is now working to ensure it keeps the key Malay vote in the run-up to the next general election, using the media to show up weaknesses in PR.
The media and pro-Umno bloggers have also been playing up reports of a sex tape showing a man resembling Anwar. The latter will know on Monday if he has to defend himself against a second sodomy complaint.