Saturday, March 8, 2014

The honey trap they set up to nab Anwar

Yes, there has certainly been an outrage regarding the Court of Appeal’s decision in overturning Anwar Ibrahim’s acquittal on the sodomy charge of two years ago. Some are outraged about the timing, so close to the Kajang by-election that Anwar was supposed to contest and which he can no longer do. Others are outraged that Anwar was found guilty, period, and for only that reason.
Some suspect that this is a conspiracy at the highest level to end Anwar’s political career — and this is the source of their outrage. Why they should be outraged even if this suspicion is true is not explained although ending your opponent’s political career is very much part and parcel of the political game and those within Umno plus within the opposition are also trying to end Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s political career.
Then we have Malaysians who are outraged by the way the trial was conducted. To be honest, I did not attend the trial and neither am I a lawyer so I would be out of my depth if I tried to comment about this matter. Nevertheless, what I did notice from afar was that the defence focused on technicalities such as whether the evidence had been tampered with and hence whether the evidence should therefore be disqualified.
Somehow, for whatever reason I am not sure, the Court of Appeal was convinced that the evidence had just been repacked but the seal had not been broken and hence the evidence had not been tampered with. Therefore, according to the Court of Appeal, the trial judge should not have disqualified the evidence, which was where the trial judge had erred in doing so and which resulted in Anwar’s acquittal.
The defence’s strategy was to challenge the prosecution to prove Anwar’s guilt, which is how it should be. The accuser has to prove guilt and not the accused prove innocence. Hence they attacked the validity and credibility of the evidence, which they successfully did and won an acquittal. Prove that Anwar sodomised Saiful, was the route they took.
I believe, earlier on in the trial, the defence said it was going to prove Anwar’s innocence by proving that Anwar had an alibi and was not at the scene of the crime at the time the alleged crime was supposed to have taken place. It was announced that 14 witnesses were going to be called to testify, the condo owner and Anwar’s wife amongst them.
Later they changed their mind and did not call the witnesses after all. And the talk we hear is that the witnesses got cold feet and backed out when the CCTV recording showed Anwar going into the condo at that exact time the crime was supposed to have been committed.
Maybe Anwar’s lawyers should explain this to the public because this type of talk seriously damages Anwar’s case in the court of public opinion. They need to explain why the change of plan regarding the 14 alibi witnesses and whether it is true that they changed strategies after the CCTV tape-recording emerged. And one more thing they need to explain is why Anwar did not take the stand to tell the court that he is innocent. Anwar never testified that he is innocent. He just told the prosecution to prove it if they can.
Then there was Saiful’s colleague Rahimi, who escorted Saiful in his meeting with Najib. Najib at first denied the meeting and then later admitted that the meeting, in fact, did take place. And, more importantly, the meeting occurred before the alleged sodomy act took place.
So the meeting was not just between Najib and Saiful but was in the presence of a third person, Rahimi, who was employed by PKR and worked in PKR’s office. Anwar’s lawyers, in fact, have the video recording of Rahimi’s statement where he related in great detail what was discussed in Saiful’s meeting with Najib.
I know about this video-recorded statement by Rahimi because I was the one who did the video recording. I then handed the original tape recording to Anwar’s lawyer and I kept a copy in my house. Soon after that, the police raided my house and confiscated all my videotapes and detained me under the Internal Security Act.
Hence I know what Rahimi said regarding the meeting between Saiful and Najib, which was witnessed by Rahimi. But neither Najib nor Anwar’s lawyers want to reveal the existence of this videotaped statement by Rahimi. Why?
This is what puzzles me. And the only person thus far who has come to the same conclusion that I have is Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew when he publicly stated that Anwar is a victim of a honey trap.
Yes, that was what I thought as well. And when Lee Kuan Yew said the same thing that I was thinking I was even more convinced that I was right. And Rahimi’s statement that I personally videotaped (which both Anwar’s lawyer and the Malaysian police have) will support this statement by Lee Kuan Yew. So why has that evidence been kept buried?
I can only suspect that both Anwar’s lawyers plus the police are keeping this evidence hidden because it makes both Anwar and Najib look bad. And Anwar’s lawyer Senator Saiful Izham Ramli can confirm the existence of this videotape because I handed the original to him for safekeeping plus he was there when I did the recording.
And what did Rahimi say? Well, maybe those who possess this video recording can reveal this since the video is in their possession. I was just the cameraman who recorded what Rahimi had to reveal regarding Saiful’s meeting with Najib and what Lee Kuan Yew said was the honey trap they set up to nab Anwar.

No comments: