KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 10 — Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s claim of a political conspiracy in his second sodomy charge remains unproven and is not a credible defence, the Federal Court said today when delivering a guilty verdict.

According to a press summary of its decision, the country’s top court also pointed out that Anwar’s political conspiracy allegation was given in an unsworn statement, which meant that the prosecutors and trial judge could not quiz him on his claim.

“While it is true that it is within the appellant’s right to give a statement from the dock, that statement must, however, amount to a credible defence. A mere denial does not amount to a credible defence.

“We hold that the defence of political conspiracy remains a mere allegation unsubstantiated by any credible evidence,” the Federal Court said in a 54-page press summary on its decision on Anwar’s alleged sodomy of former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

Earlier, the Federal Court laid down Anwar’s complaint that two lower courts had failed to consider his defence of a political conspiracy, which would have led to his acquittal, despite his claim being backed with names, dates and events, instead of being “plucked from the air”.

According to the Federal Court, Anwar had argued that Saiful had met with the Opposition Leader’s adversaries before lodging a police report on the alleged sodomy, which was purportedly “concocted” by those involved in the meeting.

Anwar had also argued that there was a miscarriage of justice when the Court of Appeal dismissed his claim of a political conspiracy involving the then deputy prime minister and other individuals, it said.

While acknowledging that both the High Court and Court of Appeal did not explicitly consider the political conspiracy defence, the Federal Court said a trial judge would typically not attach much weight to an accused’s unsworn statement, as he could not be questioned on his testimony.

The apex court then noted the trial judge had viewed Anwar as having denied the sodomy offence with the belief that he was charged to “send him into political oblivion by attempting to put him behind bars”, also adding that the Court of Appeal had later agreed that the unsworn statement was a mere denial.

The Federal Court then concluded that the Court of Appeal had used the right principle to assess Anwar’s unsworn statement, disagreeing that there was a serious misdirection by the appellate court.

In the same press summary, the Federal Court said it arrived at the same conclusion as the two lower courts that Saiful is a “credible witness”.

“Having gone through PW1’s evidence and how he stood the vigorous cross-examination, we agree with the trial judge that there is nothing inherently improbable about his story.

“We too find him to be a credible witness,” it said, referring to Saiful as the first prosecution witness (PW1).

Earlier, the Federal Court noted that it “takes a lot of courage for a young man” like Saiful to make the sodomy claim against a well-known politician like Anwar, saying that it could not ignore the “life-long negative effect” of such a serious allegation on Saiful and his family even if it is proven true.

“The minute details testified by PW1 gave his testimony the ring of truth, as, unless he had personally experienced the incident, he would not be able to relate the antecedent facts and the sexual act in such minute details.

“It must be borne in mind too that despite the lengthy cross-examination, PW1 had withstood that gruelling session which the trial judge described as ‘sometimes bordering on harassment’,” it said, adding that Saiful had hid nothing about the alleged sodomy incident and was found by the High Court to be completely open and honest, with the Court of Appeal agreeing with that finding.

The Federal Court said that it was reasonable for Saiful to “take some time” before lodging a police report, given his age then and his link to Anwar, also saying that it was a settled legal principle that it is for the trial judge to decide whether a witness is credible.

“Having heard and observed the demeanour of the witness, the trial judge found PW1 to be a credible witness. His finding was upheld by the Court of Appeal,” it said, having noted that an appellate court would be slow to interfere with the findings of a trial judge who has the advantage of seeing and hearing a witness.

With the Federal Court’s five-year jail sentence today, Anwar now stands to lose his Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat as the law bars anyone fined over RM2,000 or imprisoned more than one year and has not received a free pardon from serving as a lawmaker.

The decision also leaves the Pakatan Rakyat federal opposition pact without a leader.