CASE N° MAL/15 - ANWAR IBRAHIM - MALAYSIA

Resolution adopted without a vote by the Inter-Parliamentary Council
at its 165th session (Berlin, 16 October 1999)

The Inter-Parliamentary Council,

Referring to the outline of the case of Mr. Anwar Ibrahim, a member of the House of Representatives of Malaysia, as contained in the report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians (CL/165/12(b)­R.1), and to the relevant resolution adopted at its 164th session (April 1999),

Taking account of the written observations conveyed by the Executive Chairman of the Malaysian National Group dated 26 May and 22 September 1999, and of the additional information and observations he provided at the two hearings held on the occasion of the 102nd Conference (October 1999),

Recalling the following evidence on file: on 2 September 1998, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad dismissed Anwar Ibrahim, a member of the House of Representatives, from his posts of Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, arguing that he was "morally unfit to govern". On 20 September 1998, Anwar Ibrahim was arrested under the Internal Security Act (ISA) and subsequently charged under the Penal Code and Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance 1970 with sexual misconduct and corruption, respectively. The trial of Anwar Ibrahim started on 2 November 1998; on 14 April 1999, the judge found Anwar Ibrahim guilty under the corrupt practices charge and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment,

Recalling that, prior to Anwar Ibrahim's arrest, several persons close to him were arrested and detained; Mr. Sukma Darmawan was arrested on 6 September 1998 and detained incommunicado for 13 days before his appearance in court; Munwar Anees was arrested on 14 September 1998 and held incommunicado for five days; on 19 September 1998 both men appeared in separate Session Courts in Kuala Lumpur and pleaded guilty to charges of having let Anwar Ibrahim sodomise them and were sentenced to six months' imprisonment,

Considering that Mr. Anees and Mr. Darmawan have appealed against their convictions on the ground that their guilty pleas had been coerced; in December 1998, Mr. Sukma Darmawan, in support of his appeal, lodged an affidavit to this effect, stating also that police had threatened to plant ammunition in his car and charge him with possession unless he implicated Anwar Ibrahim. In May 1999, the High Court dismissed his appeal stating that there had been no miscarriage of justice since he had admitted the facts and understood the consequence of his guilty plea,

Considering in this connection that Mr. Darmawan's guilty plea was admitted as evidence in his joint trial with Anwar Ibrahim on sodomy charges which began in July 1999; during questioning in court Mr. Darmawan testified that police humiliated him by making him stand naked and by groping his genitals and pinching his nipples while taunting him with debasing words; he said he was given no food on the first day of detention and, though suffering from asthma, was placed wearing only underwear in a small, damp and cold cell; at one stage he was taken for a DNA test, given a painful anal examination by a doctor and photographed naked from all angles by police; he said that he could no longer stand it and "when I said I would obey them, they removed my handcuffs, returned my clothes and became polite ... They wanted me to admit I had sex with Anwar ..."; police denied all allegations and on 26 July the Judge ruled that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Darmawan's confession had been made voluntarily in that there had been no inducement, threat or promise by police; considering also that, according to the Chairman of the National Group, the Judge arrived at this conclusion after having held "a trial within the trial" to determine whether the confession had been made voluntarily,

Recalling that allegations of mental and physical pressure by police to obtain false statements were reportedly also made by Mr. Nallakarupan, a businessman and tennis partner of Anwar Ibrahim who was arrested under the ISA on 31 July 1998 after police had searched his residence in connection with an inquiry into allegations of corruption and sexual misconduct involving Anwar Ibrahim, published in May 1998 in the book entitled "50 reasons why Anwar Ibrahim cannot become Prime Minister",

Recalling that when, on 29 September 1998, after having been held for nine days in incommunicado detention, Anwar Ibrahim was brought before the Court for the first time, he showed visible signs of ill-treatment and lodged a formal complaint about beatings received while in custody; that during the investigations by a Royal Commission of Inquiry set up on 27 January 1999, the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Abdul Rahim Noor, admitted that he had "lost his cool" and that, acting alone and under no direction or prompting, he had assaulted Anwar Ibrahim; that, on the Commission's recommendation, charges of attempting to cause Anwar Ibrahim grievous bodily harm were brought against the IGP, who pleaded not guilty to them and was due to stand trial in September 1999; noting that, according to information supplied by the Chairman of the Malaysian National Group, Mr. Rahim Noor will be taken to court in February 2000; this was due to the backlog of cases and "it would be unfair to delay other cases just because of the IGP",

Considering that after Anwar Ibrahim's arrest, in reference to the guilty pleas of Mr. Anees and Mr. Darmawan, the Prime Minister stated at a press conference that "... what they said was the absolute truth ... The fact is that the man (Anwar) had for years been masquerading as a religious person and yet had been committing these things not today, not yesterday, but for years ... When I discovered he was guilty of something that I cannot forgive, something that Malaysian society cannot accept ... action had to be taken"; noting that, at a High Court hearing on 5 October 1998, the lead counsel for the defence, complained that senior public officials had publicly stated their view as to Anwar Ibrahim's guilt. He expressed concern that this would influence the court and deny Anwar Ibrahim a fair and impartial trial; the lead prosecutor argued that it was important to maintain freedom of speech; the Judge then entered an order that there should be no comment in the media on the innocence or guilt of the accused,

Considering that, according to the Chairman of the Malaysian Group, the Prime Minister had made those statements when the case was not yet sub judice; the Prime Minister had to explain why he had sacked Anwar Ibrahim,

Recalling that one of the central elements of the charges against Anwar Ibrahim was that he had directed the police to obtain retractions of allegations of sexual misconduct and sodomy which were true; the prosecution thus had extensive evidence from various witnesses to prove the veracity of those allegations; the witnesses included Ummi Hafilda Ali and Azizan Abu Bakar, who had initially made the allegations, and an expert who attested the presence of semen and vaginal fluids on a mattress on which Anwar Ibrahim is alleged to have had sexual intercourse with Shamsidar Taharin; at the end of its case in January 1999, the prosecution made an application to amend the "corrupt practices" charges; thus, the witnesses were now said to have made allegations of sexual misconduct and sodomy, but Anwar Ibrahim was no longer asserted to have committed any such acts; the trial judge accepted the amendment, arguing that the "commission of sexual misconduct and sodomy ... is not really a substantive element to be proved" and decided to expunge all evidence regarding the sex allegations from the file; he made this ruling without any application being made by either the prosecution or the defence for this evidence to be expunged,

Recalling its concern that this ruling of the Judge denied the defence the opportunity to rebut the evidence adduced by the prosecution and prevented Anwar Ibrahim from adducing evidence which would restore his character and image severely tarnished by the prosecution evidence; considering in this connection that, according to the Chairman of the Malaysian Group, Anwar Ibrahim will have the opportunity to rebut the evidence as he now stands trial on the sodomy charges; noting in this connection that, according to information on file, the sodomy charges of which Anwar Ibrahim is now accused are different from those raised in the previous case,

Recalling that the sources have expressed concern that throughout the trial action was taken against Anwar Ibrahim's defence team infringing international standards of fair trial; recalling in this connection in particular that defence counsel Zainur Zakaria had filed an affidavit in court accusing the prosecution of going out of its way to pressure S. Nallakaruppan into giving information against Anwar Ibrahim; according to the statutory statement submitted by Nallakaruppan's attorney, Manjeet Singh Dillon, the prosecutors offered to reduce the charge against Nallakaruppan if the latter would testify falsely against Anwar Ibrahim; on 30 November 1998, Judge Paul found Zainur Zakaria in contempt of court for filing a slanderous pleading and imposed a sentence of three months' imprisonment,

Considering finally that, on 10 September 1999, the judge in the sodomy trial instituted in July 1999 against Anwar Ibrahim ordered his admission to hospital as defence counsel Karpal Sing reported that an excessive level of arsenic had been discovered in Anwar Ibrahim's urine; Kuala Lumpur University Hospital (HUKM) which carried out the examination arrived at the conclusion that Anwar Ibrahim "... developed a number of medical problems namely rapid weight loss, significant hair loss, paraesthesia, dryness of the skin and abdominal discomfort ... He did not have classical clinical signs of acute or chronic arsenic poisoning. Urine, hair and nail specimens showed arsenic levels which did not exceed the level/range that is allowed, based on the level given by the respective laboratories. Due to the persistence of his medical problems, the cause of which are not found from the common illnesses mentioned above (after thorough examination and investigations) and from the arsenic levels found in the specimens examined, it is recommended that HUKM will continue to assess and follow up on the patient's health status ...",

1. Thanks the Executive Chairman of the Malaysian National Group for the information and observations supplied and for his cooperation;
2. Remains deeply disturbed at the concordant allegations of coercion of witness statements against Anwar Ibrahim; forcefully recalls that international human rights standards require that allegations of coercion of testimony be promptly and impartially investigated by the competent authorities including the Judge, and that they prohibit the use of evidence elicited under duress; wishes to ascertain the evidence adduced and the legal grounds put forward by the Judge investigating the new sodomy charges for accepting as evidence a guilty plea which, Mr. Darmawan affirmed, had been coerced;
3. Can but consider that the ill-treatment inflicted upon Mr. Ibrahim while he was in police custody lends credence to the allegations of coercion of witnesses' statements;
4. Expresses deep concern at the fact that, instead of investigating the content of an affidavit made by Mr.  Nallakaruppan's lawyer attesting that prosecutors in Mr. Ibrahim's case attempted to pressure Mr. Nallakaruppan, who at the time was charged with a crime carrying the death penalty, to implicate Mr. Ibrahim, the judge charged the lawyer who brought this matter before the court with contempt of court and issued an arrest warrant against the lawyer who had made the affidavit;
5. Fears that such conduct may constitute a serious interference with the right of the defence to be able to defend the accused to the best of their ability, and recalls that respect for the rights of the defence is an essential ingredient of fair trial;
6. Can but remain concerned that, at the end of the prosecution's case, the corruption charges were amended in such a way that the prosecution was no longer obliged to prove sexual misconduct by Anwar Ibrahim despite the fact that it had been the subject of hearings of witnesses and presentation of evidence for over two months, and remains concerned that this prevented Anwar Ibrahim's defence from presenting its arguments and evidence and thus from clearing him immediately of any such unfounded accusations;
7. Notes that an attempt to obtain a denial of allegations defaming a person can be a criminal offence punishable with six year's imprisonment, a sentence which it considers grossly disproportionate; expresses its belief that Mr. Ibrahim should instead be entitled to redress for prejudice to reputation caused by such groundless accusations;
8. Can but reiterate its fear, in view of the evidence on file, that Anwar Ibrahim's prosecution was prompted by other than legal motives and built on a presumption of guilt;
9. Expresses deep concern at the conclusions of Kuala Lumpur Hospital on Anwar Ibrahim's state of health, which show that it has considerably worsened in detention, and calls on the authorities to release him on bail;
10. Would appreciate receipt of a copy of the new indictment issued against Anwar Ibrahim involving sodomy charges;
11. Requests the Secretary General to convey this decision to the competent Malaysian authorities, inviting them to provide their observations;
12. Requests the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians to continue examining this case and report to it at its next session (April-May 2000).

Note: you can download a complete electronic version of the brochure "Results of the 102nd Conference and related meetings of the Inter-Parliamentary Union" in PDF format (file size 680K approximately). This version requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, which you can download free of charge.