However, a day earlier, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police Datuk Jamil Johari had already announced that the Police did not rule out the possibility of the police taking action against Anwar for lodging a false report of his arsenic poisoning while in prison. The police would take action under Section 500 of the Penal Code if it was proven that the report was false.
Jamil then told reporters: "I cannot comment more on the matter as investigation is in progress".
The announcement by the police even before the HUKM report was submitted to the Kuala Lumpur High Court raises the question whether the Police was acting independently and professionally in its investigation, or was joining the campaign of vilification and intimidation which had been orchestrated by the powers-that-be against Anwar and his supporters following the HUKM report.
Jamil should explain what is this "police investigation" that is in progress - has the police now reached the conclusion that Anwar never suffered from arsenic poisoning and is now only interested in proceeding under Section 500 of the Penal Code to see whether action could be taken against Anwar for lodging a false report?
If the police have arrived at the conclusion that Anwar had never suffered from arsenic poisoning, the police should explain how it had come to this conclusion when HUKM report submitted to the Kuala Lumpur High Court made no reference whatsoever as to whether Anwar had suffered from arsenic poisoning on August 18, when his urine sample was taken and analysed by the Melbourne pathology laboratory as showing a high level of arsenic content.
Based on the Melbourne Gribbles report that his urine sample taken on August 18 had dangerously high level of arsenic content, which was first made known to the Kuala Lumpur High Court and Anwar himself on Sept. 10, a day after Datuk Seri Wan Azizah received it, Anwar lodged a police report on the same day that he was suffering from arsenic poisoning.
The Police would only have a case against Anwar for lodging a false report if it had evidence that Anwar knew that the Melbourne Gribbles report was false or that the urine sample did not belong to him.
The question all Malaysians want to know is why the medical tests had not verified the Melbourne Gribbles report, as with modern-day DNA technology, it should not be difficult to determine whether the urine sample in the name of a 59-year-old Subramaniam actually belonged to Anwar.
The Police should at all times act fairly, independently and profesionally especially as the police has a record of gross injustice in the handling of the Anwar case, and it should not be involved in any politically-orchestrated campaign of vilification against Anwar - whether in fact or in impression.