What’s startling in all of this is the absence of a priority given to correcting these defects by Malaysia’s legal fraternity. They argue instead about matters and issues not in the constitution and legislation. Provisions are often referred to even by judges as statements.

One need not go beyond this very fundamental error in the thinking evidenced by a very poor track record in training within the Malaysian legal fraternity to understand where the problem lies.

Getting to the core of the issues that bedevils the Anwar sodomy trial as his lawyers see it is Section 51 of the Criminal Procedure Code as it is extracted below from the Attorney General of Malaysia’s website.

Section 51 (1) refers:

51. (1) Whenever any Court or police officer making a police investigation considers that the production of any property or document is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before that Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons or such officer a written order to the person in whose possession or power such property or document is believed to be requiring him to attend and produce it or to produce it at the time and place stated in the summons or order.

The mischeif can be seen in the way this particular section of the code is drafted (might I further add it is characteristic of the drafting of the entire code).

This section makes out that a police officer can make an Order and “make” an investigation amongst other things (whatever that means is not defined either).

Noticeably absent is any word or words compelling the production of any such documents.

Instead the particular provision is worded in such a way as to provide a very wide discretion on the authority or person to produce, if they think it necessary or desirable.

Even if it is not the correct section of the appropriate act, then what’s published here is [...] an example of the problem the law faces.

Your article and criticisms therein assumes that parliamentary committee recommendations should take precedence over established legislation which is patently wrong.

A failure to disclosure in discovery simply means that the party failing to disclose may not then rely on the particular document or piece of evidence they do not disclose as a general rule. There are of course exceptions to that rule.

However, and I do not wish to provide gratuitous advice to Anwar’s legal team, their handling of this matter appears to jeopardise Anwar’s defence more than it serves to help the man.

The defect remains in the detail and they have not yet discovered it and that’s really where the problem lies. Interpretations offered by two lawyers on this site further serve to only reinforce the problem.