Sodomy II - Saifool’s rectum was empty, doctor tells court

Surgeon Razali Ibrahim, who had examined Saiful Bukhary Azlan for signs of sodomy, told the High Court today he found the complainant’s rectum “empty”.

“The rectum was empty... I recorded as ‘empty’,” the former Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) doctor replied under cross-examination from Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s defence lawyer Sankara Nair.

Razali also testified the anal probe he carried out on June 28, 2008 was not the first clinical check done on Saiful. Razali, now with Hospital Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (HUKM), admitted under Sankara’s persistent questioning that it was not easy to carry out the proctoscopy examination on Saiful, even with the use of a lubricant.

Any sudden introduction of any instrument into the anus would likely cause injury to the sensitive body part, Razali said. Saiful, a former male aide to the opposition leader, had accused Anwar of sodomising him in an upscale condominium in leafy Damansara Heights here on June 26, 2008. Then 23, he had visited Hospital Pusrawi, a private medical centre here, for a check-up after complaining of pain in his anus before being referred to HKL two days later.

A medical report from Pusrawi, leaked to the media last year, revealed the large-eyed and slender youth as claiming he had not passed motion since being sodomised. Razali — quizzed over Saiful’s bowel movements — added he did not record the fact despite agreeing with Sankara that it would be good and proper medical practice to do so. The doctor had generated a buzz in court earlier when he disclosed that there were some photographs taken of Saiful during the medical examination, right after saying there were stains on the cotton padding used to swab the youth’s rectal area for further laboratory testing. Asked if it included Saiful’s genitalia, Razali said no.

The diminutive doctor had seemed somewhat relieved after Sankara took over questioning from the defence lead, Karpal Singh — the older lawyer had subjected Razali to an intense grilling the past two occasions. But he soon learnt that Sankara was just as persistent as Karpal in digging for information, with the patience of a bodhisattva. The medical expert also testified that the anal probe he carried out on June 28, 2008 was not the first clinical check done on Saiful.

Initially, he refused to admit it was a proctoscopy, claiming he had not been told what instrument had been used to anally probe Saiful. Razali, now with Hospital Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (HUKM), eventually admitted to it under Sankara’s persistent questioning, adding there was a danger of contamination and cross-contamination in a second probe.

He also said it was not easy to carry out the proctoscopy examination on Saiful, even with the use of a lubricant. He related that it took him two tries to insert the proctoscope — a narrow, hollow and transparent cylindrical tube made of plastic that looks similar to a test tube — into Saiful’s rear end.

Razali said the first time he used a saline lubricant, but found he could go only a short distance inside; so he switched to a gel-based lubricant for a deeper probe. Any sudden introduction of any instrument into the anus would likely cause injury to the sphincter, a sensitive body part, the doctor said. Saiful had not complained of pain during the anal examination, Razali said.

Trial judge Datuk Zabidin Mohd Diah adjourned the trial to 8.30am tomorrow.

The defence team will be arguing their case for access to the three HKL doctors’ handwritten medical notes recorded during a three-hour examination of Saiful on June 28, 2008. Sankara told reporters they also want a copy of the chemist’s report touching on Saiful’s toxicology test results, which was supposed to have been supplied from before trial began but were somehow went missing.