Guilty-the Unanswered Questions 

The mode and manner in which Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim's adopted brother, Sukma Dermawan, and his friend, Dr. Munawar Anees, were charged in Court with the offence of allowing Anwar to sodomise them has shocked the whole nation. 

The charges against the two men raise a number of questions: 

One: Since the two of them had reportedly alleged that they were sodomised by the former Deputy Prime Minister, why didn't the police interrogate the alleged sodomiser himself before producing Sukma and Munawar in Court? Isn't this the normal procedure? Isn't this required of a professional police force? 

Two: Isn't it odd that both Sukma and Munawar were arrested and investigated by the police and charged in Court, after Dato Seri Anwar had already been sacked from the government and party for his 'low morals', notably his alleged homosexual activities? Isn't this a case of the police looking for evidence after the event, to justify the Prime Minister's condemnation of Anwar? 

Three: Wasn't it wrong to keep Sukma in custody for 12 days without allowing him access to counsel? To make it worse, his family was not allowed to visit him. How can one defend conduct of this sort in a nation founded upon the rule of law? 

Four: Likewise, how would one explain Munawar's arrest under Section 73 of the International Security Act (ISA) when he was, in the end, produced in court on a sodomy charge under the Penal Code? Doesn't this make a mockery of the legal process? 

Five: Isn't it possible that detaining Munawar under the ISA, with the threat of indefinite incarceration, may have been used to coerce him to allege that he had been sodomised by Dato Seri Anwar? This is similar to Dato Nallakaruppan's arrest which carries the death penalty. The threat of death appears to have been used to force him to implicate Anwar in wrongdoings. 

Six: If the guilty pleas entered by Sukma and Munawar were obtained under duress of one kind or other, how much credence can we attach to such pleas? Besides, obtaining pleas of guilt through subtle or stark coercion, intimidation or fear is not admissible in any civilised legal system. 

Seven: How is it that both Sukma and Munawar were suddenly provided with counsel who entered pleas of guilt on their behalf when the services of these lawyers were not requested by their families? Isn't this yet another example of how basic rules and procedures have been violated with impunity? 

It is only too apparent that the pleas of guilt of Sukma and Munawar had one objective: to implicate Anwar, shame him through the media and prepare the ground for his own arrest, presumably under the same sodomy charge. The indecent and unethical way in which they were charged shows clearly that there is a larger political motive behind Saturday's Court episode. If anything , it offers confirmation of Anwar Ibrahim's opt-repeated claim that there is a high-level conspiracy to destroy his political career. 

[Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the president of International Movement for a Just World]