The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union,

Referring to the case of Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim, an incumbent member of the Parliament of Malaysia, and to the resolution it adopted at its 190th session (April 2012),

Recalling that Mr. Ibrahim was being prosecuted, for the second time, on a charge of sodomy under Section 377B of the Malaysian Penal Code and that the proceedings again raised serious questions regarding the fairness of the trial,

Referring also to the first trial observer report submitted by Mr. Mark Trowell QC in August 2010 (CL/187/12(b)-R.2), to his second report, submitted in March 2011, and to the comments provided thereon by the Malaysian delegation to the 124th IPU Assembly (CL/188/13(b)‑R.3); recalling that Mr. Trowell responded to the comments of the Malaysian delegation in another report and has since provided the Committee with reports on the proceedings in this case, which he observed in June, August and September 2011 and January 2012,

Recalling the following: in his verdict of 9 January 2012 acquitting Mr. Ibrahim, the judge concluded that, after going through the evidence, the court could not be absolutely certain that the DNA samples had not been compromised and that it was therefore not safe to rely on them as evidence; this left the court with nothing but the alleged victim’s uncorroborated testimony and, as this was a sexual crime, it was reluctant to convict on that basis alone; the Attorney General has lodged an appeal in the belief that there was sufficient evidence for a conviction,

Considering that the case is at management stage and that the source expects the proceedings on the merits to start in early 2013,

Considering the following: Mr. Ibrahim and four others were charged on 22 May 2012 with inciting riots and disobeying a Magistrate’s order during the rally organized by the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections in Kuala Lumpur on 28 April 2012; all five are charged with offences under Sections 3, 4(2)(c) and 4(3) of the Peaceful Assembly Act, 2012 (Akta 736), which must be read together with Sections 90(2) and 98 of the Criminal Procedure Code and with Article 10 of the Federal Constitution; they are also charged with offences under Sections 34, 109 and 188 of the Penal Code, which must be read together with Sections 90(2) and 98 of the Criminal Procedure Code and with Article 10 of the Federal Constitution; Mr. Ibrahim’s defence team, which considers the charges to be frivolous and baseless, has submitted its arguments to have the charges set aside; the source points out that Mr. Ibrahim is challenging the Peaceful Assembly Act, which is a new law;

Considering that, according to the Malaysian delegation to the 127th IPU Assembly (Quebec, October 2012), Mr. Ibrahim is accused of defying a ban against assembling at Dataran Merdeka (Merdeka Square) in Kuala Lumpur and of inciting demonstrators to breach a police barricade, all of which was recorded on video, and that the matter is now before the courts,

Considering that the Speaker of the House of Representatives stated in his letter of 13 July 2012 that his office had forwarded the Committee’s request for information regarding the charges to the Attorney General’s Office,

1. Thanks the Malaysian delegation for the information provided;

2. Is nevertheless concerned about the latest charges against Mr. Ibrahim, which it cannot dissociate from the concerns it has repeatedly expressed regarding the handling of criminal proceedings against him over the years; eagerly looks forward, therefore, to receiving further details on the facts underpinning these charges, including if possible a copy of the video;

3. Recalls in this regard its particular and recent concerns about the second sodomy proceedings to which Mr. Ibrahim was subjected, in particular regarding their timing, the implication of members of the prosecution team who were involved in the first sodomy trial, the meeting between the alleged victim and then Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak, the liaison between the alleged victim and a member of the prosecution team and the refusal of the trial judge to admit defence petitions for the disclosure of vital prosecution evidence;

4. Believes, therefore, that it is essential to monitor the appeal proceedings closely and requests the Committee to pay particularly close attention to observance of respect for procedure and the rights of the defence, including by exploring the possibility of sending a trial observer;

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

6. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and to report back to it in due course.

Note: you can download a complete electronic version of the brochure "Results of the 127th IPU Assembly and related meetings" in PDF format (file size 1'392 Kb approximately). This version requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, which you can download free of charge.

HOME PAGEHUMAN RIGHTSMAIN AREAS OF ACTIVITYIPU STRUCTURE AND DOCUMENTS