Born in 1982, Aniza binte Essa completed schooling only up to Secondary 3 before dropping out. At age 19, in September 2001, she married Manap Sarlip, a 29-year-old disco jockey. They had a son in 2006, and lived with Manap’s older son from a previous marriage. Manap’s history included 21 months in prison for going AWOL during his national service. The marriage was tumultuous—marked by abuse, financial strain, and Aniza’s need to work two jobs to support the children. By 2006, she held a job at a pub, where she met a teenage co-worker who became her lover.

By mid-2007, Aniza, deeply distressed over her abusive marriage and fearful of her husband, began confiding in her teenage lover, 16-year-old Muhammad Nasir Abdul Aziz. She felt trapped and unable to pursue a divorce without fear of retaliation. Persuaded by her pleas—and threatened that she might leave him for someone else—Nasir agreed to kill Manap.

An initial attempt failed. The pair then conspired further, and on the night of 1 July 2007, Nasir ambushed and fatally stabbed Manap outside his flat at Whampoa. Manap’s last words were, “Apa salah aku pada kau?” (“What wrong have I done to you?”). He died from multiple stab wounds. Authorities arrested Aniza and Nasir within days.

Aniza stood trial on 7 April 2008 at the High Court for abetment of murder; the charge was reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (manslaughter) on grounds of diminished responsibility due to moderate depression from sustained spousal abuse. A psychiatric report supported that her mental state deeply impaired her judgment. She faced potential life imprisonment or up to ten years in jail. Justice Chan Seng Onn sentenced her to nine years' imprisonment, citing the treatable nature of her depression and low risk of reoffending.

The Attorney-General sought a life sentence, arguing that Aniza’s actions were premeditated and callous, and noting the disparity relative to Nasir’s indefinite detention under the President’s Pleasure. However, on 20 April 2009, the Court of Appeal upheld the original sentence, affirming Justice Chan’s reasoning, the correct application of sentencing guidelines, and that life imprisonment would be unduly harsh.