The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union,

Referring to the case of Mr. Anwar Ibrahim, an incumbent member of the Parliament of Malaysia, as outlined in the report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians (CL/188/13(b)-R.1), and to the resolution adopted at its 187th session (October 2010),

Referring also to the first trial observer report submitted by Mr. Mark Trowell QC, in August 2010 (CL/187/12(b)-R.2) as well as to his second report, submitted in March 2011, and the comments provided thereon by the Malaysian delegation to the 124th IPU Assembly (CL/188/13(b)-R.3),

Recalling that Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim is being prosecuted, for the second time, on a charge of sodomy under Section 377B of the Malaysian Penal Code; recalling also the concerns it has expressed regarding procedural irregularities and the recommendation of the IPU trial observer in his August 2010 report that the proceedings be discontinued on the ground that this would be in the public interest, the prosecution’s case having been completely compromised; noting that his second report is likewise critical in particular as regards the question of disclosure of prosecution evidence, possible government interference and the handling of DNA samples; noting the view of the Malaysian delegation that Mark Trowell QC, whose status as IPU trial observer it has questioned, made a biased report backing the arguments of the defence; noting also that the delegation asserted that Anwar Ibrahim’s first trial in 1998 was based not on a sodomy charge but on a corruption charge (acting corruptly by attempting to interfere with a police investigation),

Considering that the prosecution case will be closed, according to the delegation, on 25 April 2011 and the Judge will decide whether to acquit Anwar Ibrahim or require him to enter a defence,

Considering that on 16 December 2010 the House of Representatives suspended Anwar Ibrahim for six months, and noting the following in this respect:

• The suspension decision originated in a sitting of the House on 17 March 2010 when Anwar Ibrahim linked Prime Minister Najib Razak’s “One Malaysia” concept to the “One Israel” campaign under former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak via the international consultant firm Apco Worldwide, which has allegedly served both governments; on 22 April 2010, the decision was taken to refer Anwar Ibrahim to the Committee on Rights and Privileges for disciplinary action on account of having misled the House; according to the source, that decision was taken despite the fact that Anwar Ibrahim gave abundant supporting evidence in the House on 30 March 2010 and that the Prime Minister failed to respond to his challenge to categorically deny Apco’s involvement in the “One Malaysia” concept; the Malaysian delegation affirmed the issue in question to be a highly sensitive one that needed taking into consideration;

• According to the Malaysian delegation, Mr. Ibrahim was given ample time in a plenary meeting chaired by Mr. Roland Kiandee on 30 March 2010 to explain himself on the issue but, instead of doing so, used the opportunity to bring new allegations;

• According to the source, contrary to the pledge made by the Speaker during a sitting of the House on 22 April 2010, and subsequently during the first meeting of the Committee on Rights and Privileges, which he chairs, that all relevant witnesses and documents would be examined, Anwar Ibrahim was denied his right of defence, either through legal representation or in person, and was unable to submit his defence; the source affirms that, at the Committee’s fourth and final meeting on 3 December 2010, the two opposition representatives on the seven-member Committee, Karpal Singh and R. Sivarasa, walked out in protest against the Committee’s decision to base its final decision purely on a letter from Apco CEO Brad Staples and on answers in the House from Ministers, rejecting the request to allow Anwar Ibrahim to present his defence or to call any witness, including Brad Staples; the Committee decided to suspend Anwar Ibrahim for six months and to admonish Karpal Singh for unacceptable conduct during the Committee meetings; those recommendations were to be submitted to the House in a resolution at its last sitting on 16 December 2010;

• The Malaysian delegation stressed, with regard to legal representation, that under the Standing Orders, legal representation is not mandatory as the Committee only “may” but is not in duty bound to authorize legal representation; it took the decision not to authorize legal representation as it did not wish to turn the Committee into a trial court; moreover, the Speaker had no influence over the denying or admitting of evidence; at the 4th Committee meeting (3 December 2010), Brad Staples had been summoned but could not be questioned as, owing to a heated debate and confrontation between the four majority and the two opposition members of the Committee, the meeting had to be adjourned; Brad Staples subsequently submitted a letter denying that Apco had provided advice on the “One Malaysia” campaign and only advised the Parliament on communication matters, the delegation stressed that all decisions had been taken by 4 against 2 members;

• When the suspension motion was put to the vote in the plenary, according to the source the Speaker ordered a vote without debate after receiving a written note from Minister Nazri Aziz, the author of the two motions; when Anwar Ibrahim demanded his right to answer the charges, the Speaker reportedly replied that he had been given one week in which to respond, which, according to the source, is untrue; when asked by Karpal Singh to recuse himself from chairing the meeting owing to a conflict of interest as he had also chaired the meetings of the Committee on Rights and Privileges, the Speaker reportedly denied having taken part in the Committee’s deliberations; however, according to the source, notes of the meeting show that it was the Speaker who had justified the decision not to call Anwar Ibrahim, on the basis of precedence;

• The Malaysian delegation stated, with regard to that session, that when the Minister wished to table the motion, there was an uproar in parliament and chaos, the opposition deliberately obstructing the proceedings - which was confirmed by a member of the delegation who had quit the opposition in February 2011, he himself having been entrusted at the time by Anwar Ibrahim with applying that strategy; after two hours of chaos, the motion was eventually tabled, Anwar Ibrahim was called, but was not interested; the Speaker then called on the majority to debate the motion amidst the continuing disorder; finally the opposition walked out and the motion was adopted;

• Moreover, according to the source, following another motion by Minister Aziz Nazri, opposition members Karpal Singh, Azimin Ali and R. Sivarasa were also suspended for a six-month period, reportedly for contempt on account of revealing and discussing the proceedings in the Anwar Ibrahim suspension case; the motion was reportedly submitted because of a parliamentary minority report on those suspension proceedings co-authored by Karpal Singh and R. Sivarasa, and which the Speaker refused to admit; the Malaysian delegation stated in this respect that the minority report should have been submitted first to the Committee on Privileges and that, at the press conference they held after walking out of the Committee on Privileges, Karpal Singh and R. Sivarasa had divulged privileged information; as to Mr. Ali, he had revealed the Apco letter to the public,

1. Thanks the Malaysian delegation for its cooperation and for the information it provided; also thanks Mr. Mark Trowell QC for his report;

2. Wishes to state clearly that Mr. Mark Trowell QC was duly mandated by the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians to observe trial hearings on behalf of the IPU and that the Court was duly informed thereof; observes also that accusing a trial observer of bias because he or she, after examination of the issues in question from a legal point of view, concurs with arguments of the defence is a fallacious argument which it cannot accept;

3. Observes moreover that, contrary to the affirmation of the delegation, Mr. Anwar Ibrahim was indeed charged with sodomy in 1998 and the corruption charge related precisely to Anwar Ibrahim’s alleged attempt to interfere with the police investigation of the alleged sodomy; points out that the IPU had sent an observer to the proceedings before the Federal Court and was provided with trial observer reports on the 1998 sodomy proceedings;

4. Is deeply concerned at Anwar Ibrahim’s suspension from parliament for a six-month period on account of having raised in parliament a highly sensitive issue, which, it considers, was protected by parliamentary privilege; affirms that punishing members of parliament for raising on the floor of the House any issue they consider important, whether or not highly sensitive, is not only a grave restriction on their freedom of speech but may also have a dampening effect on freedom of speech in parliament as such and so jeopardize its function as a debating chamber;

5. Stresses that, while members of parliament may be punished for making deliberately misleading statements, it is an established convention in parliaments following the Commonwealth tradition that rules imposing punishment for making such statements concern Cabinet Ministers of the Government to ensure that they do not mislead Parliament; considers therefore that, in this instance, the application of this rule was misplaced;

6. Notes that it is uncontested that the Committee on Privileges did not authorize Anwar Ibrahim to defend himself through legal counsel and that he could not call witnesses or cross-examine any witnesses, and deeply regrets thereforethat the Committee did not observe the fundamental principle of audiatur et altera pars,applying to any procedure whereby sanctions can be imposed; finds this all the more regrettable and even counterproductive in the case of the Leader of the Opposition since such treatment reinforces the impression that he is a target of politically motivated prosecution and harassment;

7. Requests the Secretary General to convey this resolution to the parliamentary authorities, Anwar Ibrahim and his defence team;

8. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case, to follow the proceedings in the sodomy case and report to it at its next session, to be held on the occasion of the 125th IPU Assembly (October 2011).

Note: you can download a complete electronic version of the brochure "Results of the 124th IPU Assembly and related meetings" in PDF format (file size 672 Kb approximately). This version requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, which you can download free of charge.

HOME PAGEHUMAN RIGHTSMAIN AREAS OF ACTIVITYIPU STRUCTURE AND DOCUMENTS