Anwar Vs Yusoff Who Wins Narrative Battle

---

 



Though the criminal trial, unlike the civil suit, involving Yusoff Rawther, the former research assistant to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, has nothing to do with the latter at all, the trial has, however, been invariably depicted as a legal battle between both of them too.
Worse, both of the court proceedings - civil and criminal - are often projected as an epic battle between David and Goliath.
While Yusoff seems to have enjoyed a plethora of sympathies so far, the prime minister, on the other hand, has everything to lose, assuming the court’s decision will eventually be in favour of Yusoff.
Hence, the stakes are relatively high for Anwar and his government.
As of today, Yusoff seems to have hit the jackpot, thus a double whammy of Anwar and, by extension, his Madani government too.
In a recent civil hearing at the High Court, Yusoff managed to convince the court to dismiss Anwar’s application to refer a slew of constitutional issues to the Federal Court. Anwar’s critics sternly denounced his move and, in turn, characterised it as part of a delaying tactic.
Right to explore
In social media, Anwar’s application to seek legal immunity as a prime minister is portrayed as too baffling. Netizens argue that, if at all, he is entitled to such an immunity, why was the attorney-general not involved from the outset?
Legally speaking, Anwar has every right to explore all legal avenues to frustrate Yusoff’s suit. It is perfectly normal and nothing illegal whatsoever. Perhaps the only problem is the timing.
Maybe Anwar should have instructed his lawyer to file his application as early as possible. After all, the writ summons was filed as early as July 2021.
And yesterday, Yusoff tasted another legal victory. The Kuala Lumpur High Court decided to acquit Yusoff of criminal charges of drug trafficking and possession of two imitation pistols. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case against him.
Based on the factual matrix of the case as widely reported in the media, the court’s decision to acquit him seems to be a foregone conclusion.
In criminal charges like what Yusoff had to face, the prosecution was obligated to adduce ironclad evidence in proving to the satisfaction of the court that Yusoff had knowledge and exclusive custody and control of the drugs and fake pistols.
Miserable failure
But the court, having exercised a maximum evaluation of the prosecution’s evidence, ruled that the prosecution miserably failed to prove that Yusoff had knowledge, custody, and control of the drugs and fake pistols. Ergo, the judge had no alternative but to free Yusoff.
Was the judge wrong? Until such a finding by the learned trial judge is duly reversed by the appellate forum (assuming there is an appeal), the decision remains undisturbed; hence, Yusoff has been found innocent so far.
Anyway, there seemed to be a lot of blunders appearing in Yusoff’s trial as reported in the media. Was the investigation too shoddy? Was the charge against him trumped up? I certainly don’t want to speculate.
But as a former trial lawyer, I must say with such a quality of evidence, the defence counsel would have certainly exploited them to the hilt to assist his client in getting an acquittal verdict.
This question crops up: was the case between Anwar and Yusoff merely a court battle? Some argue it also entails a battle of narrative.
In my view, the opposition’s narrative is more interesting, simple, and acceptable. Hence, it is relatively easy to relate to people!
Their narrative - the charges against Yusoff were most likely trumped up!
How about the government’s narrative? With due respect, it is all Greek to the voters. At the end of the day, in a battle of narrative, perception matters. - Mkini
HANIPA MAIDIN is a former deputy minister of law.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---