Anwar trials (1999-2004, 2015)
This page covers the criminal cases involving Anwar Ibrahim, their court outcomes, and their immediate effects on Malaysian federal politics.
what happened
Anwar Ibrahim’s cases involved separate convictions at different times. In 1999 he was convicted of corrupt practices and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment; in 2000 he was convicted of sodomy and given a consecutive nine-year sentence.
In September 2004, the Federal Court allowed his appeal against the sodomy conviction and he was released. The earlier corruption conviction was not overturned by that decision.
A later case, based on an allegation from 2008, ended with the Federal Court upholding a five-year sentence in February 2015. The result removed Anwar from Parliament, and Wan Azizah Wan Ismail subsequently became the MP for Permatang Pauh.
The legal outcomes did not settle public disagreement about the cases. Anwar and several rights organisations described the prosecutions as politically motivated, while the Federal Court’s 2015 judgment upheld the conviction. In May 2018, Sultan Muhammad V granted Anwar a full royal pardon and he was released.
the working
What the sources say
established
Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad dismissed Anwar Ibrahim from his posts as Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister on 2 September 1998; Anwar was later arrested and prosecuted.
adjudicated
On 14 April 1999, the High Court convicted Anwar of corrupt practices/abuse of power and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment.
adjudicated
On 8 August 2000, the High Court convicted Anwar of sodomy and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment, ordered to run after the six-year corruption sentence.
adjudicated
In its 2 September 2004 judgment, the Federal Court allowed Anwar’s appeal against the sodomy conviction by a 2–1 majority; he was released that day, having already completed the sentence for the separate corruption conviction.
adjudicated
The 2004 Federal Court decision overturned the sodomy conviction, not the earlier corruption conviction.
established
The second case concerned an allegation made in 2008 by Anwar’s former aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.
adjudicated
The High Court acquitted Anwar in January 2012; the Court of Appeal reversed that acquittal on 7 March 2014 and imposed a five-year prison sentence.
adjudicated
On 10 February 2015, the Federal Court upheld Anwar’s conviction and five-year sentence in the second sodomy case.
established
The 2015 conviction ultimately removed Anwar from the Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat; Wan Azizah Wan Ismail won the subsequent by-election and took her oath as its Member of Parliament on 18 May 2015.
Speaker’s statement reported by Astro Awani · Parliament of Malaysia
established
Article 42 of the Federal Constitution provides for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s power to grant pardons, reprieves and respites for offences in the Federal Territories.
Federal Constitution of Malaysia · University of Melbourne Law School
established
On 16 May 2018, Yang di-Pertuan Agong Sultan Muhammad V granted Anwar a full royal pardon, and Anwar was released from detention.
uncertain
No public record located in this review sets out the Pardons Board’s deliberations or reasons before the 16 May 2018 full pardon.
searched: official-pardon and contemporaneous-reporting searches
where accounts differ
The parts nobody agrees on
contested
Anwar described the 2000 sodomy prosecution as a political conspiracy against him.
contested
Amnesty International said in 2000 that it considered Anwar a prisoner of conscience and that he had been prosecuted because of his political activities and challenge to government leaders; this was the organisation’s assessment, not a Malaysian court finding.
contested
The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded in 2015 that Anwar’s detention was arbitrary; this was an opinion of that UN expert body, rather than an overturning of the Malaysian Federal Court judgment.
contested
Human Rights Watch characterised both periods of imprisonment as resulting from politically motivated charges; that is Human Rights Watch’s assessment.