Anwar has served four years in jail

The Court of Appeals, Malaysia's second-highest court, upheld a ruling that Mr Anwar had sodomised his wife's former driver.

Anwar was heir apparent to Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, but in 1999 he was convicted of corruption - abusing his powers to cover up allegations of sexual misconduct.

In 2000 he was convicted on a further charge of sodomy.

"It's all scripted. What do you expect?" said Anwar, after the ruling was handed down.

Anwar began his nine-year sentence for sodomy on Monday after completing the mandatory portion of a separate six-year sentence for corruption.

Release sought

Anwar's lawyers said they would now appeal to Malaysia's highest court, the Federal Court.

Anwar: Incorrigible optimist

Both the Court of Appeals and the Federal Court had earlier dismissed another appeal against the corruption conviction.

During his appeal, Anwar's lawyer argued that the driver Anwar was accused of sodomising was offered bribes and other incentives to testify against his boss.

"He was an ordinary driver, but he was later offered (the chance) to be a company director with a driver," the lawyer said.

Anwar's defence team also noted that the date of the alleged offence had been changed twice.

The judges gave no reasons for dismissing Anwar's appeal, but in a highly unusual move said they would give written reasons at a later, unspecified date.

The court will hear his application for bail later on Friday.

After the verdict was delivered, Anwar hugged his wife, Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, and their five daughters, some of whom were in tears.

Outside the court some 200 of Anwar's supporters clapped and shouted "reformasi" (reform) when the opposition politician's lawyers appeared.

The court also dismissed a joint appeal by Anwar's adopted brother, Sukma Darmawan, who was convicted together with Anwar for sodomy in September 2000, and sentenced to six years in jail and whipping.

Human rights group Amnesty International said the verdict against Anwar "adds to the already widespread perception that in politically sensitive cases, the independence of the judiciary can no longer be guaranteed".