CASE N° MAL/15 - ANWAR IBRAHIM - MALAYSIA

Resolution adopted without a vote by the Inter-Parliamentary Council
at its 164th session (Brussels, 16 April 1999)

The Inter-Parliamentary Council,

Having before it the case of Mr. Anwar Ibrahim, a member of the House of Representatives of Malaysia, which has been the subject of a study and report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians in accordance with the " Procedure for the examination and treatment by the Inter-Parliamentary Union of communications concerning violations of human rights of parliamentarians ",

Taking note of the report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians (CL/164/13(b)-R.1), which contains a detailed outline of the case,

Also taking account of the information and observations supplied by the Malaysian delegation to the 101st Inter-Parliamentary Conference (Brussels, April 1999),

Considering that Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad dismissed Mr. Ibrahim from his posts as Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister on 2 September 1998, arguing that he was " morally unfit to govern "; that the next day police announced publicly that Mr. Ibrahim was under criminal investigation and lodged with the High Court a number of affidavits alleging that Mr. Ibrahim had been involved in acts of sexual misconduct, tampering with evidence, bribery and threatening national security; that, although the allegations were unsubstantiated and Mr. Ibrahim had not formally been charged, the full contents of the affidavits were publicly released and received extensive one-sided coverage in the local press; considering that Mr. Ibrahim denies all the accusations,

Noting that allegations of sexual misconduct on the part of Mr. Ibrahim were circulated for the first time in June 1997, when he was serving as Acting President of the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) and Acting Prime Minister; that police investigations instituted upon Prime Minister Mahathir's return to office in August 1997 dismissed the allegations as groundless; that in June 1998, the sex allegations resurfaced in a book published under the title " 50 reasons why Anwar Ibrahim cannot become Prime Minister " which alleges, inter alia, that Mr. Ibrahim was not only " a womaniser and sodomite but also a murderer who had abused power and was at the same time a CIA agent and a traitor to the Nation "; considering that, despite a court injunction describing the book as " one long poison-pen letter " and restraining the distributor from circulating it or its contents, " 50 reasons " was distributed free to party delegates at the UMNO General Assembly,

Considering that on 20 September 1998, after he had led some 30,000 demonstrators through the streets of Kuala Lumpur calling on Prime Minister Mahathir to resign, Mr. Ibrahim was arrested although not under the sexual and corruption charges brought against him but under the Internal Security Act (ISA), which permits indefinite ministerial detention and is not subject to judicial review; that he was denied bail on the grounds that he was being detained under the ISA; noting in this connection that, according to the Malaysian delegation to the Conference, the ISA permits the filing of a writ of habeas corpus,

Considering that, according to the authorities, upon his dismissal as Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Ibrahim took to the streets, which was completely contrary to the political culture and Malaysian law; that he was openly exhorting street rebellion against the Government, instigating mob attacks against Parliament and the Prime Minister and consequently was detained under the ISA; that as soon as the rest of the charges were ready he was properly brought to court and charged,

Considering that when brought to court on 29 September 1998, after having been held incommunicado for nine days, Mr. Ibrahim showed visible signs of ill-treatment including a swollen eye and a bruised arm; that he complained of having been handcuffed and blindfolded after his arrest and that the police had then proceeded to " beat him severely, causing serious injuries " until he " virtually passed out until the next morning "; that he was not allowed to see a doctor until the fifth day of his detention; that he lodged a formal complaint about beatings he received while in custody and that a doctor who examined him on 29 September released a medical report stating that Mr. Ibrahim had been assaulted " over the left forehead and received blunt trauma that resulted in residual bruises over the left upper and lower eyelids ... ",

Noting that a Special Investigation Team of police officers set up to investigate the allegations of ill-treatment drew up a report which has as yet not been released; that on 5 January 1999, the Attorney General made a public statement admitting that " there are injuries on certain parts of his [Anwar Ibrahim's] body which are proved to have been caused by police officers while in police custody "; that, however, the Investigation Team was unable to identify the person or persons responsible for such injuries; that, subsequent to the resignation on 7 January 1999 of the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Mr. Rahim Noor, the Prime Minister announced on 27 January the establishment of an independent Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate the police assault on Mr. Ibrahim; that, according to the Malaysian delegation to the 101st Inter-Parliamentary Conference (April 1999), the Commission, after open hearings, reported to H.M. the King, who conveyed the report to the Government, which has not yet released it,

Also noting that Mr. Ibrahim filed two applications for bail which were both rejected by the competent High Court Judge; that, in its decision of 16 January 1999 on the appeal submitted by Mr. Ibrahim against that decision, the Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an order for the granting or refusal of bail was not subject to appeal,

Considering that, on 2 November 1998, Mr. Ibrahim went on trial on six charges of sexual misconduct (sodomy) and four charges of corrupt practices, the latter relating to accusations that Mr. Ibrahim had abused his ministerial office by directing two senior police officers in August 1997 to obtain denial letters from Mr. Azizan (the former driver of Mr. Ibrahim's wife) and Ms. Ummi Hafilda Ali, the two key witnesses in the trial, the latter having made the sodomy allegations in August 1997 in a letter addressed to the Prime Minister accompanied by a sworn statement by Mr. Azizan in which he alleged that Mr. Ibrahim sodomised him; also considering that each of the corruption counts carries a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment or a 20,000 ringitt fine (US$ 5,000), or both, and that each sodomy charge carries a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment and whipping,

Considering in this connection that, according to the authorities, the whole case was caused by people very close to him and that the evidence that has come to the prosecution derived from police investigations arising from his own police report; that great efforts were made by the Prime Minister himself to avoid Mr. Ibrahim being charged in court but to no avail; considering also that, according to the delegation, Malaysia is a very conservative society and charges of sexual misconduct are highly damaging, particularly for a politician,

Considering that in mid-January 1999 the trial judge, holding that the " commission of sexual misconduct and sodomy ... is not really a substantive element to be proved ", admitted a prosecution amendment to the " corrupt practices " charges to the effect that the witnesses only alleged but did not assert that Mr. Ibrahim committed acts of sexual misconduct; that all evidence regarding the sex allegations has consequently been expunged from the file; noting in this connection that the dropping of the sexual misconduct charges may, according to the sources, put Mr. Ibrahim at graver risk of conviction as the amended charges lower the burden of proof and he may be convicted under Section 2(1) of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance 1970 which punishes an attempt to influence public officials with the aim of obtaining a " personal advantage ",

Considering that, according to information supplied by the Malaysian delegation to the Brussels Conference (April 1999), the sexual misconduct charges are still pending and may be taken up once the other case is ruled on,

Taking into consideration the allegations that the charges held against Mr. Ibrahim are fabricated with the aim of discrediting him and thus eliminating him from politics, and noting in this connection the following:

(i) On 14 September 1998, two of Mr. Ibrahim's associates, Mr. Sukma Darmawan, Mr. Ibrahim's adopted brother, and Dr. Munawar Ahmad Anees, a Pakistani national and friend of Mr. Ibrahim, were arrested. On 19 September 1998, one day before Mr. Ibrahim's arrest, they were each sentenced to six months in jail after having pleaded guilty under Section 277D of the Penal Code of having allowed Mr. Ibrahim to sodomise them. During pre-trial detention, both were reportedly denied access to their families or to the lawyers their families had appointed for them but instead were reportedly represented in court by lawyers assigned to them. There are serious allegations of grave ill-treatment in detention and of forced confessions. Both men have appealed against their convictions on the ground that their guilty pleas were not made voluntarily;

(ii) Mr. Ibrahim's associate, Mr. S. Nallakaruppan, was arrested in July 1998 under the Internal Security Act and went on trial on charges of illegal possession of firearms, a charge carrying a mandatory death penalty under the ISA. When searching his home during an investigation into the allegations of sodomy regarding Mr. Ibrahim, police had discovered 125 bullets. The bullets were previously held under a licence for a firearm, but Mr. Nallakaruppan had neglected to return them to the authorities together with the firearm for which they were meant. In an affidavit filed by Mr. Nallakaruppan's lawyer in the High Court on 28 November 1998, it was alleged that prosecutors in the Anwar Ibrahim trial had offered to consider trying Mr. Nallakaruppan on lesser charges should he co-operate in implicating Mr. Ibrahim in the commission of sexual misconduct. On the basis of this affidavit, Mr. Zainur Zakaria, a member of Mr. Ibrahim's defence team, objected to the prosecutors. The presiding judge considered this to be contempt of court and sentenced Mr. Zakaria to three months' imprisonment and ordered the arrest of Mr. Nallakaruppan's lawyer;

(iii) There are reportedly serious inconsistencies in the different testimonies given by the key witnesses. One of the senior police officers whom Mr. Ibrahim allegedly directed to have statements withdrawn, when called by the prosecution, produced a report he had written to Prime Minister Mahathir in 1997, stating that the sexual allegations were groundless and " deliberately created " as part of a conspiracy. In early January 1999, the government chemist who had conducted DNA tests of stains on a mattress conceded that the stains could have been planted by police and that the tests could not warrant a conviction,

Considering that Mr. Ibrahim has launched defamation suits against Prime Minister Mahathir and others for having publicly referred to him as a sodomite,

Noting that Mr. Ibrahim has lodged a lawsuit against the Prime Minister for wrongful dismissal from his post as Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister on the grounds that, according to the law, only H.M. the King can dismiss him and that until now H.M. the King has not signed such a dismissal letter,

Noting finally that according to the information on file, Mr. Ibrahim still enjoys his status as a Member of Parliament; that on 28 March 1999 he filed an application in the High Court seeking an order to allow him to attend the House of Representatives sitting starting on 5 April 1999; that he claims that the House of Representatives recognises his right to attend the sitting as he was notified of the sitting and invited to submit oral questions or motions for the sitting,

1. Is alarmed at Mr. Ibrahim's sentencing to six years' imprisonment and has every reason to fear, as elaborated on below, that Mr. Ibrahim may be prosecuted not on account of any criminal act but rather on political grounds;

2. Refers in particular to the foundation of the charges and, in this connection, wishes to point out in particular the following disturbing facts among many others:

(i) When the accusations of sexual misconduct were first made in August 1997 by the persons who are now acting as key witnesses, a police investigation ordered by the Prime Minister discarded them as groundless and unfounded; despite this, they were brought up again by the prosecution;

(ii) The day following Mr. Ibrahim's dismissal from his posts, the police announced publicly that he was under criminal investigation for acts of sexual misconduct, tampering with evidence and other criminal acts; on 20 September 1998, he was arrested not under such criminal charges, which can be challenged in court, but under the Internal Security Act;

(iii) Just the day before his arrest, two persons were convicted of having allowed Mr. Ibrahim to sodomise them and sentenced to imprisonment; both have meanwhile retracted their testimonies affirming they were coerced; there is an affidavit attesting that prosecutors in Mr. Ibrahim's case attempted to pressure Mr. Nallakaruppan, who is charged under a penal norm which carries the death penalty, to implicate Mr. Ibrahim; instead of investigating such unlawful behaviour, the lawyer who brought this matter before court was charged with contempt of court and an arrest warrant was issued against the lawyer who had made the affidavit;

4. Points out with concern that the amendment of the charges and expunging from the file of evidence regarding the sexual misconduct charges prevented Mr. Ibrahim's defence from presenting its arguments and evidence and thus from clearing him immediately of any such unfounded accusations;

5. Finds this all the more disturbing since, as the Malaysian delegation pointed out, charges of sexual misconduct are highly damaging in Malaysia, particularly for politicians;

6. Notes that the corrupt practice charges are intimately linked to the sexual misconduct charges insofar as Mr. Ibrahim is said to have directed two police officers to obtain denial statements from the persons accusing him of sexual misconduct; recalls that one of the police officers concerned had stated that the accusations brought against Mr. Ibrahim were groundless, and fails to understand how attempting to obtain a denial of false statements defaming a person can be a criminal offence; rather believes that Mr. Ibrahim has a right to obtain redress for damage caused to his reputation and personal integrity by such groundless accusations;

7. Expresses its indignation at the ill-treatment inflicted upon Mr. Ibrahim while in police custody, and urges the authorities to make public without further delay the findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry and bring to justice those responsible; fears that if such treatment can be inflicted upon a Deputy Prime Minister, this lends credence to the allegations of coercion of witnesses' statements;

8. Strongly urges the authorities to respect due process of law and Mr. Ibrahim's right to fair trial and to investigate fully and without any further delay all allegations of undue interference with the course of justice in his case;

9. Would appreciate receiving:

(i) a copy of the judgment handed down on Mr. Ibrahim;

(ii) fuller information on the possibility Mr. Ibrahim has of attending parliamentary sessions;

(iii) information on the outcome of or stage reached in the defamation proceedings Mr. Ibrahim launched against the Prime Minister;

(iv) information on the progress of his complaint of unlawful dismissal from his post of Deputy Prime Minister;

11. Requests the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians to continue examining the case and report to it at its next session (October 1999).

Note: you can download a complete electronic version of the brochure "Results of the 101st Conference and related meetings of the Inter-Parliamentary Union" in PDF format (file size approximately 570K). This version requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, which you can download free of charge.