IPU Logo-top>>> VERSION FRANÇAISE  
 IPU Logo-middleInter-Parliamentary Union  
IPU Logo-bottomChemin du Pommier 5, C.P. 330, CH-1218 Le Grand-Saconnex/Geneva, Switzerland  

MALAYSIA
CASE No. MAL/15 - ANWAR IBRAHIM

Resolution adopted by consensus by the IPU Governing Council at its 180th session*
(Nusa Dua, Bali, 4 May 2007)


The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union,

Referring to the case of Mr. Anwar Ibrahim, a member of the House of Representatives of Malaysia at the time of the submission of the complaint, as outlined in the report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians (CL/180/12(b)-R.1), and to the resolution adopted at its 179th session (October 2006),

Taking account of the comments made by the Malaysian delegation to the 115th IPU Assembly (Geneva, October 2006) on the resolution adopted at its 177th session (October 2005) and of the observations on the pardon procedure provided on 15 January 2006 by Mr. Ibrahim's defence counsel,

Noting the following:

  • in its comments, the delegation sought first to demonstrate that Mr. Ibrahim had been convicted of abuse of power for reasons unrelated to the sodomy charge and that the Federal Court had acquitted Mr. Ibrahim on the sodomy charge, not because it had concluded that no criminal act had taken place, but mainly because of the prosecution's failure to prove the actual date of commission of such act and because it had found that the victim in the case was an accomplice having participated in the act; corroborative evidence was therefore needed to support the victim's complaints;

  • the comments further sought to establish that for Mr. Ibrahim to be granted a pardon, he himself had to submit a pardon petition; according to the delegation, the applicable law was the 2000 Prison Regulations, Articles 54, 113 and 114 of which specify the situations in which pardon proceedings can be instituted; only Regulation 113, which stipulates that a prisoner or a member of his family may petition the King on the subject of his conviction or sentence as soon as practicable after his conviction, was applicable in this case and consequently Mr. Ibrahim had himself to submit a pardon petition; the group of Malaysian citizens which had submitted a pardon petition on his behalf in May 2005 had no locus standi in that respect;

  • finally, the comments sought to demonstrate that the Prime Minister had no role to play in the pardon procedure since he was not a member of the Pardon Board,
Considering that,
  • on the question of pardon, according to Mr. Ibrahim's defence counsel, the 2000 Prison Regulations do not apply in this case since Mr. Ibrahim was sentenced in April 1999 and the Prison Regulations entered into force only on 1 September 2000; that, moreover, Regulations 54, 113 and 114 do not apply to Mr. Ibrahim since they concern only prisoners and that, consequently, there is nothing in the law to prevent a third party from submitting a pardon petition;

  • on the role of the Prime Minister, Article 40 of the Constitution provides that he shall act on the advice of the Cabinet or a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet unless otherwise stipulated, and Article 42 of the Constitution, which deals with the power to pardon, stipulates that the King is empowered to grant pardons, reprieves and respites in respect of all offences which have been tried by court martial and all offences committed in the Federal territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan and provides for no exception to Article 40,
Noting lastly that Mr. Ibrahim does not wish to submit a pardon petition since this would be tantamount to an admission of guilt, and that he has brought a defamation lawsuit against the former Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir, for the statements he made during the judicial proceedings against him,
  1. Notes that there is nothing to alter its firm belief that Mr. Ibrahim's trials and conviction were based on a presumption of guilt, and that he should therefore be granted a pardon so as to enable him once again fully to participate in the political life of his country;

  2. Reiterates therefore its full support of a pardon for Mr. Anwar Ibrahim;

  3. Requests the Secretary General to inform His Majesty the King and all other competent authorities, as well as Mr. Ibrahim, accordingly;

  4. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and report to it at its next session, to be held on the occasion of the 117th Assembly (October 2007).

* The delegation of Malaysia expressed its reservation regarding the resolution.

Note: you can download a complete electronic version of the brochure "Results of the 116th IPU Assembly and related meetings" in PDF format (file size 511K approximately ). This version requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, which you can download free of charge.Get Acrobat Reader

HOME PAGEred cubeHUMAN RIGHTSred cubeMAIN AREAS OF ACTIVITYred cubeIPU STRUCTURE AND DOCUMENTS