As it is, there has been no criminal investigation, charges, trial of a sitting Prime Minister in Malaysia - and that gave us 1MDB, SRC - for if law enforcement was fast to act against Najib then, the crime/s could have been ended fast - and we could have not lost so much ...
At present, the King and/or the Malay Rulers have NO immunity from criminal investigations and charges... In fact, the Federal Constitution says...
Article 33A Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall cease to exercise the functions of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong if charged with an offence (Federal Constitution)
(1) Where the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is charged with an offence under any law in the Special Court established under Part XV he shall cease to exercise the functions of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
(2) The period during which the Yang di-Pertuan Agong ceases, under Clause (1), to exercise the functions of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall be deemed to be part of the term of office of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong provided for in Clause (3) of Article 32.
# There is still no similar provisions for the Prime Minister, Ministers, Deputy Ministers and/or MPs - maybe there must be the same provision - if charged, cease to be Prime Minister, Minister,... Maybe not so for Members of Parliament. Remember, one can only be charged for a crime if and when the prosecution determines that they have sufficient evidence to prove all the elements of the crime, and/or that the accussed is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The principle is that a person should not be charged in Court until the investigation into the case against him has been completed and there is prima facie evidence to prosecute him of the charge. In other words, a person should not be put in peril of a criminal trial unless the prosecution is able to prove the case against him. To do otherwise is an injustice. The legal principle as to when one should be CHARGED, Arrested and released on Police Bail - The Case of PP v Tan Kim San, judgement of late Supreme Court Judge Harun Mahmud Hashim
However, for MPs, if there is a criminal charge, the Prime Minister must RESIGN. For MPs, the moment the Court convicts, they should disqualified because until then we rely on the legal presumption of innocent until tried and proven guilty. However, after the Court convicts, despite there being 2 other appeals, the 1st presumption does not apply - it is then Presumption of GUILT unless the appeal court/s overturns the conviction. Thus, MP Syed Saddique, who has already been tried and convicted ought to be disqualified as a MP, in my opinion.
Likewise, no one including the Prime Minister ought to have immunity from civil suits - Ironically, Anwar himself has commenced civil suits against some after he became Prime Minister
Anwar, 75, had filed the suit on December 20, 2022 against Muhyiddin over his alleged slanderous statements during his speech at the Grand Finale Perikatan Nasional Padang Serai in Taman Selasih, Kulim while stumping for PN candidate Datuk Azman Nasrudin for the 15th general election on December 5, 2022. - Malay Mail, 22/5/2023
Anwar should also watch his language - he should not be calling people stupid, etc - thankfully, these Malaysians did not file a legal action or defamation suit. Anwar and his Ministers must RESPECT people, and their freedom of expression, opinion and speech. Don't call them stupid or trouble-makers, etc - it is unbecoming of a Minister..
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim urged the people not to entertain certain “bebal” (stupid) quarters that insist on politicising issues and condemning those who do not align with their stance.## In my opinion, the Prime Minister or any member of the Cabinet, should NEVER file defamation or slander actions against anyone, as it certainly stifle freedom of speech, freedom of expression. Ministers should OPEN to criticism, and should just speak up and correct the mistakes, errors, etc - and leave it at that.
Note, the other problem is that the Prime Minister has too much power - he and/or the government decides who be head of law enforcement, Public Prosecutor, and even Judges. Other than Judges, the PM can remove 'whenever' heads of law enforcement, even the Attorney General/Public Prosecutor. JUST TOO MUCH POWER...Yes, it may say the KING appoints - but the King has to listen to what the PM advises . the King has no right to not listen to the PM, and do not do as advised.
Given this state of affairs, it becomes really difficult to get a criminal case going against the Prime Minister (and maybe those linked to the government of the day' - the police would most likely stall/end it with a 'No FURTHER ACTION'[NFA] decision.
'No FURTHER ACTION'[NFA] - does not mean the file/case is closed, it may be 'reactivated' at any time later, maybe if there is new evidence, etc.
Yusoff Rawther filed a police report about the 'alleged sexual harassment/abuse' against Anwar Ibrahim, but nothing happened (even though Anwar was not in Cabinet then) - Why did the police not investigate, call in Anwar to record statements, or even charge him in court?.
This kind of behaviour frustrates the complainant, more so if he/she was a victim. The question then is whether Malaysian law enforcement will independently and without fear and favour do their duty when the alleged perpetrator is the Prime Minister, Minister or someone connected?
In any event, in his quest for justice, Yusoff Rawther was forced to file a CIVIL SUIT/Action against Anwar... and now Anwar is trying to 'GET IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL SUITS', maybe temporarily for so long as he is Prime Minister. Will Justice be served?
Do we want a law that gives immunity from civil suits(or even criminal prosecution) for so long as they remain Prime Minister, Minister,....? I think NOT - it is totally unjust.
Yusoff Rawther filed police report/s after the alleged incident in October 2018...I wonder whether the police even called in Anwar for the investigation...(they may have, but I could not find any reports)
Yusoff filed the suit against Anwar in 2021, claiming that he had been sexually assaulted at the PKR president’s home in Segambut in October 2018.
It is end of May 2025 - why has the trial not started? Was there an abuse of power that resulted in the delay? Who will hear the application to refer questions to the Federal Court, hence further delaying the trial that was to start in June 2025? Well, it is a judge, picked By PM Anwar Ibrahim, and appointed by the King at the end of 2024. Will there be justice?
Roz Mawar Rozain must recuse herself from Yusoff Rawther - Anwar Ibrahim case for justice to be seen to be done. Will judges 'picked' by Anwar be INDEPENDENT in cases involving Anwar, family/friends or even his government?
Change of Judge in Sexual Assault suit filed by Yusoff Rawther against PM Anwar Ibrahim may raise questions? Can't the same Judge still hear the case?
Why did Anwar just file this application in late May, when the trial is scheduled to start in June? He could have filed it long time ago, after he became the Prime Minister.
Remember also there was a JUDGE change in this case of late
Change
of Judge in Sexual Assault suit filed by Yusoff Rawther against PM
Anwar Ibrahim may raise questions? Can't the same Judge still hear the
case?
Many Malaysians are interested in this case - they want to listen to the victim, the witnesses, and of course PM Anwar's defence.
This case is all the more important because Anwar Ibrahim was previously convicted for SODOMY, and all appeals did not overturn the conviction. After GE14, months before serving out his sentence, he received a Royal Pardon. So, the question is whether Anwar after conviction and sentence has reformed or NOT - because this allegation of Yusoff Rawther happens not too long after he was pardoned and released.
Some may see that this new application is just to DELAY further the trial...and it is not good for Anwar, the alleged perpetrator. Maybe, he just received this advice to file this application...and, his current application is not meant to delay trial.
The victim in the 2nd Sodomy trial was a former political aide, and Yusoff Rawther was also a former aide...
Personally, I am of the opinion, consensual sodomy between consenting adults must be DE-CRIMINALIZED, however a sodomy offence against an unconsenting adult is akin to RAPE, and must remain a CRIME.
Personally, I believe that no one should have immunity from civil suits, including the Prime Minister...
Now, if Anwar wanted to get IMMUNITY from Civil Suits for Prime Minister, Ministers, Deputy Ministers whilst serving as Prime Minister or member of the Cabinet, the CORRECT approach would have filed a Bill, to make a new law in Parliament. Now, he is going through the 'backdoor' to try to get the Courts to decide, and mind you all Judges that it is the Prime Minister that have the power to appoint them to higher position in the Judiciary, and even give them the 6 month extension after the Judge reach the retirement age of 65?? Will not the Federal Court judges be pressured by the fact that it is the sitting Prime Minister making this application..
Yusoff Rawther, be strong in your quest for justice...he who dared claim his rights against Anwar Ibrahim(the sitting Prime Minister) has had his civil suit delayed...and delayaed...then, he suddenly faces 'drug trafficking charges' which placed him in JAIL(or detention) because of no bail...and, finally, when the trial is about to begin, it will most likely be delayed again until the Federal Court makes a decision. If the High Court judge, rejects Anwar's application - then there may be appeals...end result may be the same, the civil suit willl be delayed...
Anwar Ibrahim must bravely face his accuser in court - so, all Malaysians will know the TRUTH. Your delaying the civil suit may be detrimental to you, Mr PM...
Anwar seeks ruling on whether he has immunity from civil suits as PM
The prime minister wants the Federal Court to determine eight legal questions, and for Yusoff Rawther’s lawsuit to be stayed until then.

Anwar said he wants the apex court to rule whether Articles 39, 40 and 43 of the Federal Constitution grant him qualified immunity from a suit filed by Yusoff Rawther four years ago.
The suit relates to events which allegedly took place prior to Anwar taking office on Nov 24, 2022.
In the application filed by his newly appointed solicitors, Messrs Zain Megat & Murad, last week, Anwar asked the court to decide whether the suit would impair the effective discharge of his executive duties and undermine the constitutional separation of powers.
He also wants the apex court to rule whether the continued progress of the suit will offend his right to equal protection under the law, as prescribed in Article 8(1) of the constitution, particularly as he claims that the suit is an abuse of process.
Anwar says the suit is premised on a “manufactured claim” and that he is the victim of “politically motivated reputational sabotage”.
He also wants the Federal Court to rule that the High Court is obliged to hold a “threshold inquiry” to determine whether the suit constitutes an abuse of process or a threat to public interest, and if so, whether it must be stayed or dismissed “to preserve constitutional governance”.
The application also seeks a determination as to whether Anwar, as the sitting prime minister, is entitled under Article 5(1) of the constitution “to protection from a vexatious litigant” bringing a suit that is “strategically timed or politically weaponised to undermine his ability to govern”.
Anwar is seeking the reference under Article 128(2) of the constitution.
He says the trial of the suit before Justice Roz Mawar Rozain must be stayed pending the outcome of proceedings in the apex court.
Lawyer Megat Abdul Munir Megat Abdullah Rafaie, who affirmed the supporting affidavit, said the application was made not to delay the trial but to ensure that any adjudication is conducted fairly and in accordance with the law.
The lawyer said the questions posed met the reference requirements set out in Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
Lawyer Rafique Rashid Ali, representing Yusoff, said he had been served with the cause papers by Anwar’s solicitors.
“An online case management has been fixed before Roz Mawar at 1pm tomorrow,” he told FMT.
The application will be heard by Roz Mawar who must determine whether the matter has crossed the required threshold for reference to the Federal Court.
Yusoff, a grandson of the late Penang consumer advocate SM Mohamed Idris, filed the suit against Anwar in 2021, claiming that he was assaulted at the PKR president’s home in Segambut in October 2018.
He is seeking general, special, aggravated and exemplary damages, as well as interest, costs and other relief deemed fit by the court.
Anwar has denied the claim and filed a countersuit.
The High Court last year fixed the trial to be heard from June 16 to 19 and June 23 to 25. - FMT, 27/5/2025
Yusoff questioned more than seven hours in Bukit Aman over sexual assault allegations against Anwar
- Nation
-
Monday, 09 Dec 2019

Yusoff (right) with his lawyer.
KUALA LUMPUR: Muhammed Yusoff Rawther, who alleged he was sexually assaulted by PKR president Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, has left Bukit Aman after being quizzed for more than seven hours.
Speaking to reporters, Yusoff demanded that people who were not part of his family to not get involved.
"This granduncle is someone I meet once a year during Hari Raya and all of a sudden, he is an expert on my life.
"It is surprising but my family has already issued a statement on the matter and I will leave it at that," he said on Monday (Dec 9) night.
His granduncle, Mohideen Abdul Kader, believed Yusoff was being manipulated by certain politicians to serve their interests.
He claimed that none of the family members including those close to Yusoff were told about what happened.
Yusoff's lawyer Datuk Haniff Khatri Abdulla said they were aware of certain individuals claiming to be family members, making reckless comments.
"So far, there has not been any threat to my client's safety, but we still need to be cautious," he said.
When asked, Haniff said Yusoff has already informed the police at length on why there was a delay in lodging a police report.
"I'm not at liberty to divulge it to the public today as it is part of the statement he gave to police.
"He wants justice and police are investigating the matter. Of course, if what he says is true and the incident did happen, then he expects police to take appropriate action by recommending what needs to be recommended to the Attorney General.
"On the other hand, he is not a young boy and he understands that if he is coming out with a lie, then he will also be paying the price," said Haniff.
He said police have told them that they had opened investigations under Section 354 of the Penal Code for assault or use of criminal force to a person with intent to outrage modesty.
On Saturday (Dec 7), Yusoff lodged a report urging police to investigate his statutory declaration.
Yusoff, a former staff member of Anwar, lodged the report at the Sentul district police headquarters.
He claimed in his report that the alleged incident occurred at Anwar's residence in Segambut on Oct 2 last year.
He also claimed to be worried about his safety and felt threatened by certain parties after holding a press conference over the issue on Wednesday (Dec 4).
Yusoff also made a sworn statement that he was sexually assaulted by the PKR president on Oct 2 last year, however, the matter was denied by Anwar, who claimed he was campaigning in the Port Dickson by-election on that day. Star, 9/12/2019
A chronology of Anwar Ibrahim's second sodomy case

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 9 — Tomorrow, the Federal Court in Putrajaya is to pronounce its verdict in the final appeal by Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to set aside his conviction and five-year jail sentence on the charge of having sodomised his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, seven years ago.
Following is the chronology of the case:
2008 :
June 28: Anwar's former aide, Mohamad Saiful Bukhari Azlan, 23, made a police report alleging that he had sodomised him at a condominium in Damansara. The report was made, two days after the alleged incident.
June 30: Anwar, 60, filed a defamation suit against Mohd Saiful for lodging a police report against him for sodomy, claiming that the report was false and malicious.
August 7: Anwar, who is also Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) adviser pleaded not guilty in the Sessions Court here on a charge of sodomising Mohamad Saiful Bukhari at Unit 11-5-1 Kondominium Desa Damansara, Jalan Setiakasih in Bukit Damansara between 3.10pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008. He was charged under section 377B of the Penal Code which carries a maximum 20 years' jail and whipping on conviction. Judge S. M. Komathy Suppiah allowed Anwar to be released on personal bond of RM20,000 without surety, pending the disposal of the case.
November 7: Sessions Court judge S. M. Komathy Suppiah ruled Anwar's sodomy case to be tried at the Sessions Court after finding that the certificate to transfer the case to the High Court, signed by Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, was invalid. In dismissing the prosecution's application, Komathy held that the certificate was tantamount to a breach of the legal expectation of Anwar that Abdul Gani would not be involved in the case.
2009 :
March 5: The High Court ruled the sodomy case to be tried in the High Court, and not the Sessions Court. Judge Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah made the ruling in favour of the prosecution which sought to revise the Sessions Court's decision to retain the trial at the Sessions Court. He held that Sessions Court judge S. M. Komathy Suppiah had erred in law in ruling that the certificate transferring the case to the High Court, which was signed by Abdul Gani, was invalid.
March 6: Anwar filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal against the High Court's order that his sodomy case be tried in the High Court.
March 10: The High Court fixed July 1-24 for the sodomy trial.
June 17: Anwar had filed an application to set aside his sodomy charge at the High Court.
November 6: The Court of Appeal dismissed Anwar's application to obtain key documents and DNA samples which he claimed were crucial for his defence in a sodomy trial. Among the key documents were the recorded witness statements of Mohd Saiful, Dr Osman Abdul Hamid from Pusrawi Hospital, condominium owner Hassanuddin Abdul Hamid, statements of three doctors from Kuala Lumpur Hospital, a chemist's notes and medical reports.
December 1: The High Court ruled that it could not strike out the sodomy charge against Anwar, based solely on medical reports that there was no penetration. In dismissing Anwar's application to quash his sodomy charge, Justice Mohamad Zabidin said medical reports could not serve as the basis for the court to use its inherent powers to strike out the charge.
2010:
February 3: The sodomy trial opened with Mohd Saiful taking the stand as the first witness. The trial before Justice Mohamad Zabidin took place, 18 months after Anwar was charged in August 2008. In his testimony, Mohd Saiful revealed that Anwar, whom he had accused of sodomising him, had invited him to engage in carnal intercourse against the order of nature. Mohd Saiful said the incident took place on June 26, 2008 after he and Anwar had completed discussing their work schedule at a unit of the Desa Damansara Condominium here.
February 5: Mohd Saiful told the High Court that he did not pass motion for two days after he was sodomised by Anwar. He also testified that a pair of trousers he was wearing on the day of the incident was a gift from Anwar.
February 9: The sodomy trial was postponed again to enable the defence to file a response to the prosecution's affidavit-in-reply to Anwar's recusal application. It was adjourned after the defence applied for Justice Mohamad Zabidin to recuse himself from hearing the case on grounds of bias.
February 18: Anwar failed in his bid to recuse Justice Mohamad Zabidin from hearing his sodomy trial. Mohamad Zabidin, in dismissing the application, ruled that there was no reason for him to recuse himself from continuing to preside over the case and that if he were to do that, it would be tantamount to running away from his responsibility.
February 25: Anwar lost his final legal challenge to procure key documents, including Mohd Saiful's DNA specimen sample, before the commencement of his sodomy trial after the Federal Court rejected his application.
March 3: During cross-examination by Anwar's lawyer, (the late) Karpal Singh, Mohd Saiful told the High Court that he did not wash his anus after the alleged incident on June 26, 2008 as he wanted to “simpan bukti“ (preserve evidence). Mohd Saiful, the star witness in the opposition leader's sodomy trial, also said that he did not take a bath after the incident and only rinsed his body. He had taken a bath in the morning prior to the incident, he said.
August 16: Anwar failed in his second attempt to drop the sodomy charge against him after his application to strike out the charge was dismissed by the High Court. In his bid to drop the charge, Anwar claimed that the integrity and impartiality of the entire prosecution team had been compromised because of an alleged affair between star witness Mohd Saiful and a member of the prosecution team.
September 20: The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Anwar over his second application to strike out the sodomy charge against him, ruling that it had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter.
December 6: Anwar Ibrahim failed in his second bid to recuse Justice Mohamad Zabidin from continuing to preside over his sodomy trial after the court dismissed his application. Anwar had applied to recuse the judge, following the judge's refusal to cite news daily, Utusan Malaysia, for contempt over a news report the defence claimed was prejudicial to the case.
December 14: Mohd Saiful's father, Azlan Mohd Lazim appealed to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin, to help speed up the court case involving his son.
2011:
January 14 : The Court of Appeal rejected the opposition leader's appeal to set aside the judge's refusal to recuse himself from hearing the trial.
May 16 : The High Court ordered Anwar to enter his defence on a sodomy charge against Mohd Saiful after finding that the prosecution had proven a prima facie case against Anwar.
In his verdict, Justice Mohamad Zabidin held that key witness Mohd Saiful was a truthful, credible and reliable witness.
June 6: Anwar failed in his third attempt to have Justice Mohamad Zabidin recuse himself from hearing his ongoing sodomy trial. He filed the application on grounds that there were prejudgment and bias by him (the judge) when he ruled Mohd Saiful to be a truthful witness at the end of the prosecution's case.
August 22: Anwar, who opted to give evidence from the dock when reading his 32-page statement, denied he had sex with Mohd Saiful. Anwar had three options — to give his evidence from the witness stand, which means he can be cross-examined by the prosecution; to give his evidence from the dock which means he cannot be cross-examined by the prosecution but in coming up with a decision the court takes into account the fact that the prosecution has not cross-examined the accused; or, to elect to remain silent. In his first sodomy case in 1998, Anwar gave evidence from the witness box.
October 6: The High Court ruled that there was no need for Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and wife, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, to testify as defence witnesses in Anwar's sodomy trial. The court made the ruling after allowing Najib and Rosmah's application to set aside the subpoenas compelling them to be witnesses in Anwar's defence case. Justice Mohamad Zabidin said after going through the affidavits, submissions and authorities from the parties, the court agreed with the counsel representing Najib and Rosmah that Anwar had failed to show the relevancy and materiality in serving the subpoenas on the prime minister and wife.
2012:
January 9: The High Court acquitted and discharged Anwar of sodomising Mohd Saiful. In the 80-page written judgment, Justice Mohamad Zabidin reveals there was penile penetration but it was uncorroborated by other evidence. He said the court could not be 100 per cent certain on the integrity of samples taken for DNA testing from Mohd Saiful as the samples could have been compromised before they reached the chemistry department for analysis.
July 9: The prosecution filed its petition of appeal which contained nine grounds, among others, to have Anwar convicted on a sodomy charge under Section 377B of the Penal Code.
September 12: Anwar had withdrawn his suit against Mohd Saiful for lodging a police report against him for sodomy, claiming that the report was false and malicious.
2013:
February 22 : The Court of Appeal has set two days from July 22, 2013 to hear the prosecution's appeal over Anwar's acquittal.
September 18 : The Court of Appeal rejected Anwar's first application to disqualify senior lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah from appearing as public prosecutor to lead the prosecution in its appeal against his acquittal on a sodomy charge.
October 2 : The Court of Appeal fixed two days from Dec 11, to hear the prosecution's appeal over Anwar's acquittal.
November 21 : Anwar failed in his appeal at the Federal Court to disqualify Muhammad Shafee Abdullah from appearing as public prosecutor to lead the prosecution in its appeal. He filed the application as he said Muhammad Shafee could not appear as public prosecutor in the appeal because he (Muhammad Shafee) was a material witness in the sodomy trial.
December 11 : Anwar filed his second attempt to disqualify Muhammad Shafee.
December 20 : Anwar failed in his second attempt to disqualify Muhammad Shafee as lead prosecutor. In dismissing Anwar's application, Court of Appeal ruled that Anwar's application was devoid of any merit. This time, Anwar used information from ex-Kuala Lumpur CID chief Datuk Mat Zain Ibrahim's statutory declaration (SD) as grounds to file the application.
2014:
March 6 and 7 : The Court of Appeal heard submissions from Muhammad Shafee and lawyer Karpal Singh.
March 7 : Anwar was sentenced to five years' jail by the Court of Appeal after the court found him guilty of sodomising Mohd Saiful, six years ago. Justice Datuk Balia Yusof Wahi, who led a three-man panel in hearing the prosecution's appeal in the case, however, granted Anwar's application for a stay of the sentence, pending appeal with bail of RM10,000 in one surety. In overturning the High Court's decision in acquitting Anwar, Balia said the panel unanimously held that the trial judge had erred in his findings that the integrity of DNA samples used in the case had been compromised. Karpal Singh, speaking to reporters later, said that with this ruling, Anwar could not file his nomination papers for the Kajang state seat by-election on March 10.
April 24 : The opposition leader filed a petition of appeal against his five-year jail sentence for sodomy at the Federal Court Registrar's Office, citing 35 grounds why his conviction and sentence should be set aside.
August 14 : The Federal Court fixed Oct 28 and 29 to hear Anwar's final appeal. Datuk Sulaiman Abdullah, a senior lawyer, would lead the defence team, following the death of lawyer Karpal Singh in a road accident on April 17.
October 14 : The Federal Court ruled that Muhammad Shafee was a proper and fit person to lead the prosecution team in Anwar's appeal on October 28. A five-man bench headed by Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria in a unanimous decision said a proper mode for Anwar to challenge Muhammad Shafee's appointment should be by way of judicial review, and not by notice of motion.
October 28 : The Federal Court heard Anwar's final appeal to set aside his five-year jail sentence for sodomising Mohd Saiful. The hearing was initially set for two days from Oct 28, dragged on for eight days as the defence and prosecution presented lengthy submissions and many legal cases were cited. The court had first heard submissions from the defence team. On the first day of hearing, senior lawyer Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram, a former Federal Court judge, who led the 15-strong defence team questioned whether there was penetration in the alleged sodomy case as Mohd Saiful's testimony was inconsistent over the existence of a lubricant called KY Jelly in the act. Meanwhile, co-counsel N. Surendran submitted that the sodomy charge against Anwar was a consipiracy.
October 29 : Lawyer Sangeet Kaur Deo told the Federal Court that the DNA profile of a person identified as 'Male Y' found in the rectum of Mohd Saiful did not belong to Anwar as there was no evidence at all to link 'Male Y' to Anwar. While, Ramkarpal Singh Deo raised there were possibilities that analyses carried out by two chemists on swab samples handed over to them by investigation officers might have belonged to someone else, and not Mohd Saiful.
October 30 : Ramkarpal told the apex court that there was no conclusive evidence to confirm penetration into the anus of the complainant, Mohd Saiful as it was confirmed by four doctors who examined him. He argued that medical notes of Dr Mohamed Osman Abdul Hamid from Pusrawi Hospital confirmed there were no injuries in the anus of the complainant when he was examined, two days after the alleged incident.
October 31 : Lead prosecutor Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah countered the defence's argument saying that Mohd Saiful could not have fabricated evidence as there was overwhelming truth in his entire testimony over his alleged sodomy act by Anwar. Muhammad Shafee said Mohd Saiful had answered spontaneous questions posed to him in court and had extensively explained one by one what happened before and after the alleged sodomy. He also submitted that Mohd Saiful was sexually harassed by Anwar in his workplace prior to the incident where he had been subjected to a dominant, influential and charismatic person.
November 3: Muhammad Shafee contended that the DNA profile known as 'Male Y' found in Mohd Saiful's rectum belonged to his former boss, Anwar. Muhammad Shafee said this was based on the DNA analysis on three items, namely a toothbrush, 'Good Morning' towel and mineral water bottle recovered in the cell where Anwar was detained overnight at the city police headquarters from July 16 to July 17 in 2008, conducted by chemist Dr Nor Aidora Saedon. He also said that Mohd Saiful's testimony pertaining to his alleged previous sexual encounters with Anwar was admissible in the present sodomy case as it reflected Mohd Saiful's state of mind and conduct before, during and after the alleged sodomy act.
November 4: Muhammad Shafee submitted that Anwar should have undergone a DNA test to prove that the unknown profile of 'Male Y' found on Mohd Saiful's rectum was not his. He also said Anwar should have called his alibi witnesses to prove he was not at the condominium unit when the alleged sodomy involving him and Mohd Saiful took place. Muhammad Shafee Abdullah said Anwar, through his solicitor, had listed 13 names, including the opposition leader's wife, PKR president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, condominium unit owner, two maids and a professor but none of them were called to give evidence in court to support his alibi that he was not at the condominium at that time.
November 6: In replying to the prosecution's argument, Ramkarpal requested the Federal Court to discharge and acquit Anwar from the sodomy charge as the prosecution's case was riddled with doubts and unaccounted coincidences. Referring to Mohd Saiful Bukhari's meeting with a senior police officer and the then Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak two days prior to the alleged sodomy incident, he said it could not be a coincidence.
November 7: While Sri Ram told the Federal Court that the PKR adviser should not be blamed for opting to make a statement from the dock in his defence during his sodomy trial. In his closing argument in the appeal, he said Anwar chose to do so due to his past experience where the lower courts had convicted him on a similar charge (of having sodomised his family driver, Azizan Abu Bakar).
The Federal Court then reserved judgement on the appeal after hearing submissions from both side.
2015:
January 26 : The Federal Court set Feb 10 to deliver its verdict. The date of the decision was announced in the Malaysian Judiciary Twitter account. The announcement stated the time of handing down the decision as 9am. — Bernama, Malay Mail, 9/2/2015