Raggie Jessy Rithaudeen
كيس سراڠن سيكسوال: انور كچوت، رامكرڤل مولا تيڤو
On the 5thof December 2019, DAP assemblyman Ramkarpal Singh came out to state that a letter of demand had been issued to Muhammed Yusoff Rawther over allegations that Yusoff was sexually assaulted by PKR president Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
The allegation was contained in a three-page Statutory Declaration that Yusoff had read out to a press conference the day before. In it, Yusoff claimed that Anwar had assaulted him physically and sexually and had even tried to sodomise him.
Ramkarpal was seeking to discover from Yusoff if indeed the latter had made a declaration against Anwar, which is ironical.
On the 16thof September 2019, former Bukit Aman VAT 69 Combat Driver Azilah bin Hadri shocked the nation by alleging that he was ordered to kill Altantuya Shaariibuu by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda.
The allegation was contained in a Statutory Declaration dated the 17thof Oct 2019, in which Azilah further alleged that Najib told him Altantuya was a “foreign spy” who needed to be “arrested and destroyed.”
This was Ramkarpal’s ‘lightning-speed’ response to the SD:
“There is no need to await a police report on the matter as the police can act on the said SD itself.
“A fresh statement must be taken from Azilah himself now and those he had implicated in his said SD, including Najib and I urge Inspector-General of Police Hamid Bador to do so forthwith in light of the seriousness of the said allegations.”
In the case of Azilah, Ramkarpal was so sure the SD belonged to the former Bukit Aman Comando hours after it went viral. In the case of Yusoff, Ramkarpal was unsure if the SD was by Yusoff even a day after it went viral.
Ironically, it was Yusoff himself who read out the contents of his SD to a press conference, unlike Azilah, whose SD mysteriously wended its way to Malaysiakini before being made public by the portal.
A check with Yusoff earlier today revealed that the letter of demand Ramkarpal had purportedly issued never in fact reached him or his lawyer, Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla.
According to Yusoff, Haniff had even written to Karpal Singh & Co, informing Ramkarpal that he (Haniff) had been instructed by Yusoff to accept services on his behalf, meaning, Ramkarpal could easily have furnished Haniff with the letter of demand.
But the letter never came.
On the 14thof January 2020, Solicitor General (SG) Datuk Engku Nor Faizah Engku Atek declared that the sexual assault case would not be furthered, citing “insufficient evidence to prosecute on the reports lodged” as grounds.
“Upon careful evaluation of all the evidence gathered in the Investigation Papers submitted by the PDRM, we found contradictions of material facts which could not support the prosecution of any person under section 354 of the Penal Code, or for that matter under any other section of the Code,” she said.
At no point did the SG indicate or even imply that Anwar was innocent, merely that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to go along with and that the case could be reopened “if and when new evidence becomes available.”
Almost immediately after the statement was made, Anwar Tweeted that he would not ‘forgive’ Yusoff for the allegations levelled against him.
“To ensure justice is upheld, legal action, which was initiated before this, will be continued,” the Port Dickson MP said.
It is unclear what Anwar meant by ‘initiated’, as a quick check with all relevant authorities and agencies revealed that nothing was ever initiated pursuant to law, be it the filing of a “letter of demand” or what have you.
Yet, three days later, Ramkarpal announced that Anwar would file a defamation suit against Yusoff over the latter’s SD implicating Anwar of sexual assault.
“As police investigations into the allegations in the SD are now complete with the Solicitor-General announcing that Anwar will not be charged … I will take the necessary steps to file the said defamation suit next week.”
But the suit never came.
On the same day, Haniff told a press conference that he and his client would like clarification on point four of the SG’s media statement dated the 14thof January 2020.
“The power to prosecute rests with the attorney general. In this case, the solicitor general. However, in this case they should not have made a statement that sounds like a court decision. Only the court can decide whether or not the report was false or otherwise, and the witness is believable or not.
“So, paragraph four of their press statement needs more explanation whether the contradiction of facts is solely from the complainant or the complainant and the one being complained against.
“But referring to this statement here, it seems that the contradiction of facts is (purely) from Yusoff and if it is true, it is usurpation of the functions of court,” Haniff said.
During the presser, Yusoff told Anwar to “bring it on” when asked what he thought about Anwar’s civil suit.
Now, every indicator suggests that both Anwar and Ramkarpal were engaged in a very public display of perception to lessen the impact of Yusoff’s damaging allegations against Anwar, a convicted sodomite.
Despite all the big talk by Anwar about “not being able to forgive Yusoff,” Ramkarpal, who previously announced a lawsuit right after the SG made an announcement, suddenly decides that it isn’t necessary to pursue the lawsuit after considering the same SG’s announcement.
Why the hell can’t he just admit that “Anwar chickened out?”
And why did Ramkarpal find the need to say that investigations were completed due to “contradictions of material facts surrounding his (Yusoff’s) said allegations?”
At which point did the SG indicate or even imply that the “contradictions of material facts” were surrounding Yusoff’s allegations?