Anwar Ibrahim: Too early to let his case rest

Why do the upholders of human rights and walkers of the ‘high road’ fail to prod Malaysia about him? 

THERE will be no respite for Anwar Ibrahim. Not until Malaysia wakes up to the fact that its leadership is autocratic and paranoid, and that the judiciary is a joke. Last week, Malaysia's Court of Appeal turned down the former deputy prime minister's bid to overturn his conviction for sodomy, upholding a nine-year prison sentence that began on 14 April 2003. Anwar is thus expected to be in jail for six more years after a customary one-third remission for good behaviour. The court also turned down his application for release on bail pending the final outcome of the appeal process.

An appeal to the Federal Court is likely. But few expect the court to deliver any surprises.

Anwar's 1999 trial that eventually led to a six-year imprisonment by the High Court is widely seen as unfair to the defendant. The defence lawyers were hounded by arbitrary accusations of contempt of court, and failed to receive protection from the court against intimidation and harassment by the police. The prosecution, at the end of its case, was allowed to amend the charges, denying the defendant the opportunity to refute the original charges of sexual misconduct. Subsequent hearings for judicial review have been characterised by contradictory evidence, dubious witnesses and rulings by the judge that openly favoured, and at times rescued, the prosecution case. (see box)

In Dr Mahathir's Malaysia, and particularly with regard to the opposition Keadilan Party (led by Anwar Ibrahim's wife Wan Azizah Wan Ismail), the judiciary has continued to toe the government line. Even as the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and Suaram, a human rights NGO, unequivocally condemned the July 2002 hearing as marked by various "judicial dysfunctions such as the refusal of bail, expunging of evidence, compelling the defence to provide a summary of witnesses' evidence in advance and ruling on their relevancy, disallowing witnesses from testifying, disallowing the defence of political conspiracy", and the EU echoed this criticism, several members of the Keadilan party remain in detention under the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) for allegedly promoting insurrection against the state.

Under the ISA, a person may be detained by the police for up to 60 days without trial for an act which "prejudices the security" of the country. After 60 days, the detention can be extended for a period of two years, with the approval of the Minister of Home Affairs. It can then be renewed for successive two-year periods. A detainee can thus expect to remain in detention indefinitely.

One of the most recent and high profile cases has been that of six activists, all of whom have been accused of plotting to overthrow the government by "militant" means. Dr Badrulamin Bahron, Mohamed Ezam Mohamed Nor, Tian Chua, Sari Sungib and Lokman Noor Adam, all leaders of the opposition Keadilan party, and Hishamuddin Rais, a columnist and filmmaker, were arrested in April 2001 in a move seen as a politically-motivated attempt to stifle dissent. No evidence to support these allegations was ever made public.

On 6 September 2002, the Federal Court heard the habeas corpus application of five ISA detainees - Tian Chua, Hishamuddin Rais, Sari Sungib, Mohamed Ezam Mohamed Nor, and Raja Petra Raja Kamaruddin who had been arrested earlier. The court ruled that their initial 60-day detention made under section 73 of the ISA was unlawful and that the police had acted in bad faith in detaining them. However, the decision did not result in the immediate release of the detainees as the judges further held that a separate habeas corpus application had to be filed since the decision did not affect the two-year detention order made by the Home Minister, even though the latter order was made pursuant to recommendations made by the police.

Of these five, Mohamed Ezam Mohamed Nor was convicted of an offence under the Official Secrets Act and is now serving a two-year jail term, while Raja Petra Raja Kamaruddin had been released before the expiry of the initial 60-day detention period.

In an unashamed display of disregard for the judiciary and the rule of law, Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister Abdullah Ahmed Badawi said the activists would not be released because the government had ordered their detention on the basis of valid security concerns. "I read the reasons why they must be detained, and I am aware that the questions that were asked during the period were also questions relevant to security matters and not just a case asking about personal questions," Mr Badawi said.

This is not borne out by the Federal Court ruling. The judge stated that "clearly, from the affidavits which it highlighted above, the questions that were asked were more on the appellants' political activities and for intelligence gathering." In refusing to revoke the detention order, Mr Badawi clearly demonstrated that he considers himself above the law.

There is no gainsaying that the government of Prime Minister Mahathir has followed a policy of oppression and legal subversion. With the impending war on terror Dr. Mahathir seems to have enjoyed a resurgence-national and international- adroitly exploiting Malaysian fears of a militant Islamic opposition and the global economic uncertainty. The Australian Defence Minister, Senator Robert Hill, is quoted as saying - with regard to the ISA - that "extraordinary responses" were needed to deal with "those not prepared to accept the norms of reasonable behaviour."

Unsurprisingly, against this background, Mr Anwar and his plight have slipped from the domestic and international spotlight.

In a sharp contrast to the 1999 judgment that created a serious commotion and protests nationally and internationally, the 2002 rebuttal of the same judgment endorsed by the highest court caused hardly a stir. The Malaysian Bar Council, which voiced its outrage four years ago, barely mumbled this time. The international community which sprang to condemnation at Judge Paul's judgment in 1999 is now either gently, expressing its disagreement or none at all.

While the international community in general continues to view Mr Anwar's jailing as politically motivated, the pressure on Dr Mahathir's government has eased over the issue, partly because of security co-operation with the government. The United States for one has all but buried the previous official expressions of concern about Mahathir's anti-democratic methods and barely disguised frame-up of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. In April 2002 US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly, hailed the Malaysian leader for his "stirring response in the global campaign against terror". Malaysia, he declared, was a "beacon of stability in the region," adding: "It is important for us to further co-operate in the matter and improve our bilateral relations." When questioned by the media on Anwar Ibrahim, Kelly replied that he had not discussed Anwar's treatment with Mahathir, even though Anwar and six of his supporters, also detained under the ISA, were on a hunger strike designed to embarrass Mahathir prior to his US visit in May 2002.

In May 2002, on the eve of Dr Mahathir's visit to USA, President Bush in a press conference gave a muted reply to a question on the Anwar case that "[o]ur position has not changed." This was qualified by a statement by the US embassy press officer Frank Whitaker who assured that "the US' stand is still as expressed in the State Department's human rights report". However Anwar Ibrahim wwas not mentioned during Dr. Mahathir's visit to Washington in May 2002. On his return from the US Dr Mahathir said that, "He (Bush) did not raise anything about democracy or human rights in Malaysia…By and large, I think other members of the US government understand the way we deal with our problems in Malaysia."

For Anwar, meanwhile, it is back to the confines of his prison cell. His treatment, however, will continue to exemplify the paranoia, the scorn for the rule of law and the contempt for fundamental freedoms that characterises the Malaysian establishment.