The first trial was held in 1998, and resulted in former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim being convicted, and given a nine-year prison sentence.
A photo of Anwar with a black eye (incurred from a beating by then Inspector General of Police Rahim Noor) and one hand raised became a symbol of the political opposition in many reformasi posters.
The government included the statements of the purported victims of Anwar's sodomy attacks, evidence that was widely considered to be tainted.
The infamous "stained mattress" that was taken in and out of court over 20 times throughout the duration of the trial, was supposedly the same one that Anwar did his homosexual acts and had extramarital sex on.
[18] Anwar responded that the complaint was politically motivated and intended to discredit him, and called it a "complete fabrication"[19] and asserted that he had an alibi.
[22][23] On 29 June, Anwar took refuge in the compound of the Turkish Embassy in Kuala Lumpur, and left the following day after receiving assurances of his safety by Malaysian police.
Under Islamic law, anyone making accusations of a sexual crime, such as sodomy, has to produce four witnesses to back up their claim.
He cut short an interview at the headquarters of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency to meet the police deadline, whereupon he was arrested.
[35] Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia on 20 July proposed that international experts be used in the investigation against Anwar, for Koh Tsu Koon opined this would prevent falsification of DNA samples.
Kuala Lumpur Hospital Director Zaininah Mohammed Zain said Anwar was not stripped naked in his medical examination.
[37][38] On 15 August 2008, Saiful swore on the Quran that he was sodomised by Anwar according to Federal Territory Mosque Imam Ramlang Porigi.
[39] On 7 August 2008, Anwar pleaded not guilty to "unnatural sex" sodomy charge (defined as "carnal intercourse against the order of nature") at the Jalan Duta Court complex and released by Sessions Court Judge Komathy Suppiah on a personal bail bond of RM 20,000.
[42] On 2 August 2010 his lawyers moved to have the charges dropped amid rumours that his accuser was having an affair with a member of the prosecution team.
[43] Anwar's defence had continually been refused access to clinical reports by the trial judge during the cross-examination of the HKL doctors who examined Saiful.
Political leaders from the United States, Australia, and other governments commented on the case, damaging Malaysia's reputation as a progressive, Islamic democracy.
Over 50 Australian Parliamentarians from the Government and the Opposition signed a letter formally requesting that Malaysia cease the trial of Anwar.
[49][50] However, People's Union for Civil Liberties and International Commission of Jurists have stated that the appeal process was going smoothly and fair on both sides.
Prominent opposition MP Karpal Singh suggested that Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and his wife were behind the initiation of the sodomy charge.
[52][53] A shared concern, such as that expressed by veteran UMNO leader Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, was that the trial will "shame the country the world over".
[55] On 9 January 2012, almost two years after the trial started, Judge Zabidin Mohamad Diah found Anwar not guilty of sodomy, after finding the DNA evidence submitted by the prosecution unreliable.
Information Minister Rais Yatim responded by claiming the verdict demonstrated the independence of Malaysia's courts.
Human rights groups accused Malaysia's government of using an "anachronistic colonial-era law" that criminalises "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" to persecute 66-year-old Anwar, who leads a three-party opposition that is increasingly popular in the predominantly Muslim nation.
[68][69] His statement was supported by one of his lawyers, Ramkarpal Singh, who applauded the bench for hearing both submissions without fail and "the fact that this appeal is one of the longest in Federal Court history proved that we will obtain fair judgement.
The decision to prosecute Mr Anwar, and his trial, have raised serious concerns regarding the rule of law and the independence of the courts".