Why appeal when Annuar should not even be charged in the first Place.

Annuar was charged under section 377A which states that 'Whoever voluntarily commits carnal intercourse against the order of nature shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to whipping". He was charged to have carnal intercourse with Saiful ,the complainant. But should the complainant be exempted from the charge when he was also a party to the commission of the crime under Section 377A? Of course not. Section 377A specifically states that ' whoever voluntarily commits carnal intercourse' Indeed it can be construed that Saiful had consensual sex with Annuar if indeed the act took place. It defintely cannot be construed as rape because Annuar was not charged with rape nor did Saiful allude to any act by Annuar which involved force.

Therefore why was Saiful not charged with the similar offence as Annuar?The fact that he was the complainant does not exempt Saiful from being charged under the section 377A. The only recourse to exemption by Saiful is to file a complaint that he was forcefully retained to perform the unnatural act under section 377A. Had Saiful resort to such a claim ,the complaint would ncertainly be unsustainable. Saiful's physic and size would make it umimaginable for Annuar to forcefully perform any act not compliant with Saiful.


The appeal by the A-G can only elicit one outcome. Annuar will be found guilty either in the Court of Appeal or the Federal court. The whole process of charging and convicting Annuar was already orchestrated the moment when Saiful had a clandestine meeting with Najib under the guise of discussing his scholastic future. Annuar's case is in direct contrast with Razak Baginda's case where it was already ordained by the executive that Razak would be acquitted without even his defence being called.

Contrast both cases and you will have a fair idea why our judiciary and the Attorney -General  chamber cannot , for the moment be a transparent and independent instituition. Not when there are unseen hands always guiding what the judiciary and the Attorney-general should do and should not do.