PUTRAJAYA: Based on sodomy complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan’s testimony it could be concluded that there may have been previous occasions when such sexual encounters had taken place with accused Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, the Federal Court heard yesterday.

Lead prosecutor Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah said this when dealing with the point of the lack of tear or injury on Saiful.

Ramkarpal Singh, one of the lawyers for Anwar in the appeal hearing, submitted last week that the lack of a tear or injury raised doubts as to whether there was penetration.

“There was no injury because of the use of lubricant, no undue force was used and delay in getting to the doctor. I would add to that, previous encounters may also explain it,” Muhammad Shafee said.

He said: “We are not interested in the fact if there was truth of the previous incidents but that would explain many of the factual matters in this case”.

Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria had asked earlier if this could potentially be prejudicial. Muhammad Shafee said that this can be taken into consideration without being prejudicial.

At the start of his submissions last week, Muhammad Shafee alluded to a possible relationship between Anwar and Saiful based on the perks Saiful received from the opposition leader.

The prosecutor went on to highlight a series of excerpts from Saiful’s testimony containing phrases that indicate that the alleged sexual act was not a one-off incident.

“Saiful said that every time he goes to the apartment he is asked to go to the specific unit,” he said.

“[Saiful also said] that he didn’t want to do it today [and] that he was not willing to do it again,” said Muhammad Shafee, stressing that the word “today” was indicative that the incident had occurred before.

Muhammad Shafee argued that these lines were “pregnant with information that there are other encounters”.

“These are phrases you can’t edit. It provides description of the actual act,” he said.

As to why Saiful did not act earlier on the alleged sexual harassment, Muhammad Shafee said that for four months Saiful was “bullied, dominated and taken advantage of...”.

Last week, he argued that victims of sexual harassment could be submissive and therefore would not take immediate action.

“Saiful has become familiar to the predicament,” he told the court yesterday.

Muhammad Shafee argued that Saiful’s actual description of the act was not something which could be made up and it was also not the first time it had happened and that the act had almost been “rehearsed” before.

On the degradation of the DNA, Shafee submitted that the word “pristine” was never used by government chemist Dr Seah Lay Hong but rather used by the defence’s expert.

He argued that if there was extreme degradation, the DNA could not be read.

“[This is a point] I have to stress. If there is degradation, it just can’t be read. The DNA’s identity cannot be changed due to degradation, you either can read it or not read it. That’s why [DNA of Malaysia Airlines flight] MH17 [victims] can still be read ... there are parts [which can be read]. It’s good enough, degradation that has not reached a stage,” he said.

Justice Arifin interjected at this juncture saying that the point of contention as submitted by Ramkarpal was that the DNA was in “pristine” condition.

“DNA was in pristine stage, that is a misquotation,” said Muhammad Shafee.

The prosecutor also argued that Pusrawi Hospital’s Dr Mohd Osman Abdul Hamid who was the first doctor to examine Saiful after the alleged sodomy was a discredited witness.

He is a “discredited witness with an incredible story”, said Muhammad Shafee, adding that he had written his report “in a cramped manner”.

The part referring to a plastic object being inserted into Saiful’s rectum was added much later in the report to benefit certain parties, said the prosecutor.

Saiful had gone to Osman complaining of pain. Saiful himself had initially told Osman that a plastic object was inserted into his rectum.

“He (Osman) himself admitted that he had put in [the part] later. [Osman] never asked if it was [done by] a third party or if he did it himself. Never asked what was the nature of the plastic inserted,” Muhammad Shafee said.

“This witness is as good as impeached. He added that the plastic object was inserted days later to benefit a certain individual,” Muhammad Shafee said.

This article first appeared in The Edge Financial Daily, on November 4, 2014.