Apex court rejects Anwar's application to admit ex-CCID director's oral testimony (Updated)

PUTRAJAYA: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s application to admit oral evidence of a senior police officer, in his review against his five-year jail sentence, was rejected by the Federal Court yesterday.
The court found the evidence of former Commercial Crime Investigation Department (CCID) director Datuk Ramli Yusuf, in a civil case as irrelevant to Anwar’s defence of political conspiracy.
The decision was made unanimously by the five-member panel of judges led by Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin with Chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Richard Malanjum, Tan Sri Hasan Lah, Tan Sri Abu Samah Nordin and Datuk Zaharah Ibrahim.
“We are of the view that the evidence of Ramli that Anwar applies to be taken by the court is irrelevant to the issues raised by Anwar. There is no nexus between the testimony of Ramli and the defence of the applicant for his case.
“We find nothing in the testimony of Ramli that would disclose any evidence, in relation to Anwar’s defence of political conspiracy,” said Zulkefli.
The judges said it would be too remote to admit the evidence on the present case to support his allegation of political conspiracy, given that the case of “black eye” had been concluded.
“Even if the evidence is relevant to Anwar’s case, it is only relevant to Anwar’s previous case of sodomy in 1998.”
Anwar had applied for an order for Ramli's oral testimony in a civil case, to be accepted and used as evidence, at the hearing of his review application.
Anwar filed a review against the Federal Court’s decision on Feb 10, 2015, which upheld his conviction and five-year jail sentence for sodomising his former aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.
Ramli’s evidence is sought to be adduced to show a “pre-arranged” plan similar to the “black eye” incident to frame Anwar.
“We are of the view that the witness statement used in the applicant’s affidavit in support of his present application is not a credible evidence.”
The applicant had failed to comply with statutory requirement, rendering the applicant’s affidavit amounting to “hearsay”, as it attempts to establish the truth of the content without the maker, Ramli, examined for verification.
They also felt the evidence is “insignificant evidence.” “We do not think that such evidence might cast a reasonable doubt in the mind of the judges, as to the guilt of the applicant, if that evidence had been given together with other evidences, at the trial,” said Zulkefli.