Rojak and Cocktail: "Black eyed Sodomee"

Anwar Ibrahim lodged a police report today against the country's police chief and attorney general for their alleged role in falsely charging him of corruption and sodomy in 1998.

On Saturday, a former male aide lodged a report alleging that Anwar had sodomized him.

The former deputy prime minister refuted the allegations, saying that the report was a 'desperate attempt' to prevent him from exposing the national police chief Musa Hassan and Attorney General Gani Patail for their alleged role in framing him on the 1998 charges.

Anwar, who says the latest sodomy allegations are yet another attempt by the government to end his political career, had sought refuge at the Turkish embassy on Sunday after he claimed to have received death threats.

Police have said they have no plans to arrest Anwar, but would be calling him to give a statement on the allegations by 23-year-old Mohamad Saiful Bukhari Azlan who claimed Anwar sodomized him on several occasions.

Anwar’s police report in full

1st July, 2008

I, Anwar bin Ibrahim, (NRIC No: 470810-07-5095), hereby make the following police report based on information that I have recently received.

1. This report is in relation to the investigation into the assault on me by the former IGP Tan Sri Rahim Noor on 20 September 1998. I believe Tan Sri Rahim Noor, after being prosecuted, pleaded guilty to the assault. I had lodged a police report in respect of the assault on 27.9.98.

2. In relation to the investigation into the assault, I believe that the Investigating Officer ACP Mat Zain bin Ibrahim (now Datuk Mat Zain) had conducted a thorough investigation and prepared an investigation paper (“IP”) which was presented by October 1998 to the former Attorney General Tan Sri Mokhtar Abdullah and his team which included the current Attorney General Tan Sri Gani Patail for further action.

3. The said investigation paper concluded that Tan Sri Rahim Noor was the perpetrator of the assault on me. The said paper reached a conclusion after a thorough investigation which included medical reports by Hospital KL forensic specialists such as Dr Ab. Halim Haji Mansar and Dr Zahari bin Noor and statement from at least 60 witnesses. The medical reports concluded that the injury inflicted on me was consistent with an assault.

4. Despite the contents of the Investigation paper and the medical reports already available, Tan Sri Mokhtar with the assistance of the current Attorney General Tan Sri Gani Patail then obtained the services of another doctor whom I was informed to be one Dr Abdul Rahman Yusof.

5. Doctor Rahman in an undated and second report speaks of a “reconstruction of the scene” on 14 December 2008. I believe that this so-called reconstruction of the scene never happened.

6. It is an undisputable fact that Dr Rahman’s reports in relation to the assault on me were done without actually even examining me at any time.

7. However, despite the IP and the already existing medical reports, Tan Sri Mokhtar in his press statement of 5 January 1999 appears to accept the views of Dr Rahman on the so-called “inconsistencies” in the other medical reports by the doctors who actually physically examined me.

8. Tan Sri Mokhtar’s press statement also states that the investigation which had been carried out did not identify the person or persons responsible for my injuries. This is inconsistent with the IP which had already concluded by October 1998 that it was Rahim Noor who assaulted me. Tan Sri Mokhtar and his team therefore had wilfully misled the public. As the police investigation done by Mat Zain had apparently not led to any conclusion, there was a public outcry and demand for a Royal Commission which was then set up. Tan Sri Mokhtar also made a false statement that the IP was submitted to him on 19.11.98. I believe that Tan Sri Gani Patail had full knowledge of the false contents of this press statement.

9. I believe Tan Sri Musa Hassan and Tan Sri Gani Patail were present in Bukit Aman on 20 September 1998 and knew about the assault by Tan Sri Rahim Noor on me. Tan Sri Musa and Tan Sri Gani further concealed the fact of the assault on me from the public until my black eye and injuries were revealed in court.

10. I believe both Tan Sri Musa and Tan Sri Gani Patail were actively involved in the procuring of the second undated report by Dr Rahman which makes false and incredible conclusions such as “the pattern and nature of the injuries are not consistent with a direct blow”, “accidental nature of the injuries could not be ruled out” and “self-inflicted nature of the injury should be considered”. They gave the instructions to Dr Rahman to proceed to write this second report and were acting under the direction and/or jointly with Tan Sri Mokhtar Abdullah.

11. These facts show that Tan Sri Musa Hassan, Tan Sri Gani Patail and SAC II Datuk Mat Zain bin Ibrahim (who, according to Dr Rahman’s second report, accompanied him to the cell in Bukit Aman where I was detained and participated in the so-called reconstruction of the scene) conspired with Dr Rahman to procure the production of this second report. This was done so that my police report of 27.9.98 in respect of the assault would be regarded as a false police report for which I could be charged, or at the very least, to damage my credibility, so as to affect my defence in the other criminal cases where I was charged for so-called “corruption” and sodomy to facilitate a conviction.

12. I wish to point out that Tan Sri Gani Patail was the senior prosecutor assisting Tan Sri Mokhtar in the prosecution against me. Tan Sri Musa Hassan was the Investigating Officer for my prosecution. I also believe, that in an unprecedented manner, an operation room specially for my prosecution was set up at Bukit Aman’s compound where all these individuals would meet regularly.

13. This is not the first time that allegations of fabricating evidence had surfaced in connection with Tan Sri Gani Patail. I am informed that in the Federal Court decision Zainur bin Zakaria v Public Prosecutor [2001] 3 MLJ, Steve Shim CJ in delivering his judgment pointed out that “… was he not justified, on a prima facie basis, in complaining that Tan Sri Gani Patail’s conduct at the meeting on 2.10.1998 was an attempt to get Nalla to fabricate evidence in order to perfect charges against him for other alleged sexual offences?” The references to “he” and “him” in that sentence are references to myself.

14. In relation to the above, I refer to the following documents which will be of assistance to the police:

1. The press statement by Tan Sri Mokhtar issued on 5.1.99.

2. The notes of proceedings in the report of the Royal Commission of the evidence of Dr Rahman

3. The second undated report produced by Dr Rahman exhibited in the Royal Commission report.

15. I call for a fresh investigation into the fabrication of evidence in this case which I am advised is an offence contrary to section 192 of the Penal Code punishable up to 7 years imprisonment. I ask that all the persons who are implicated in the procuring of this second report by Dr Rahman i.e. Tan Sri Gani Patail, Tan Sri Musa Hassan, Dr Rahman and Datuk Mat Zain bin Ibrahim be investigated thoroughly so that the truth is known and the offending individuals punished.

ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM

1st July 2008