Since the Altantuya Shariibuu trial started last year, and all the attendant publicity surrounding it, I’ve always been curious about one name.
This person was mentioned in early news reports but didn’t even come up as a witness in the subsequent trial, and currently, the trial within a trial to determine the admissibility of Azilah Hadri’s evidence.
This was the stuff of many a mamak stall conversation. Now, what I was thinking, Raja Petra has been too, with possibly more input and thought, evidence-wise.
Referring to this article posted last week in Malaysia Today. Many people I know calls RPK lots of names, from tukang karut to hatchet man, but read the stuff and make up your mind.
This invisible man’s inclusion in the equation would complete the chain of circumstances. Without him, there appears to be no connection between both Azilah Hadri & Sirul Azhar, as well as the two with Altantuya and the two with Razak Baginda.
You take this one person out of the equation, and the motive for Azilah and Sirul to kill Altantuya disappears (except if the prosecution can prove a financial motive). Even if money was the carrot, there is still that connection factor.
The two accused would not know Altantuya from Eve, if not for someone higher up the food chain in their pretty exclusive circle trained of security personnel. The chances of such an acquaintance pre-existing is pretty low, I would say. These guys ain’t exactly social butterflies…these commando types.
Razak does not have the clout to order them to anything, even if he knew them. These fellas don’t work like that. They have a chain of command.
So yes, it would be good to see the good DSP come to court and explain. But that would only happen if the court subpoenas him.
There has been a lot of strange happenings with this case, that you can’t deny.
The first multi-racial investigative team that my hantu raya said did a first class job of evidence-gathering. The current one in place is not the same.
The first prosecution team that was changed a very short time after trial begun. The defence team for Razak, Azilah and Sirul changed a couple of times.
Legal bigwig Shafee Abdullah was the initial counsel, but he was soon out of the picture. The legal counsels for the other two changed as well
Anyone who keeps attention on this issue alive is shut up/harrassed/intimidated. But let’s not forget the basics.
1) A murder took place.
2) Two law enforcement/defence personnel stands accused.
3) A defence strategist known to be “connected” is also accused.
4) Composition 4 is reportedly used to blow up the dead body. C-4 is not something you buy in Tesco. C4 is not something an individual buys for recreational purpose. It is not even a individual’s personal use purchase.
It is quite likely that all three might get the death sentence. But there are appeals and there is the King to issue pardons.
Then there is the most important question. Are these three guilty? The court will come to that decision someday, but I know something is flawed here. In Razak’s case, the act is not proven. In the other two’s cases, motive is not established.
I know something though…the three accused will not go down without some pyrotechnics. Also, perhaps the only thing that is standing between the Malaysian public and the truth of what happened, is that curious phenomenon called politics.
Update! The AG says the trial is postponed ‘cos Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Salehuddin Saidin who was leading the prosecution team had been seen playing badminton with trial judge Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin. - Bernama
Aiyo!! Why laa? One little badminton game between two legal types, a giant mistake culminating in postponement of trial. Thing is, why was this not brought to the AG’s attention earlier.
However, I “like” this sudden attention to ethics on the judiciary and AG’s Chambers’ parts. There was a time in the Malaysia’s recent past lawyers and judges could on a holiday together.
What the bloody hell is going on with the Altantuya Shaaribuu murder trial? The trial was supposed to start today but an update from The Star says this…
The Shah Alam High Court has postponed the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial to June 18 to allow the new prosecution team time to prepare its case.
Here are the cast of the big drama that started who knows when and came to an explosive first climax with the blowing up of a Mongolian national’s body.
First there was a slew of changes in the defence teams of the three accused. On the eve of the trial, a new prosecution team comes into the picture. Why at this late juncture?
I have abstained from speculating about the case on my blog since it first broke, juicy though the gossip was and the conspiracy theories that came up was worthy of international thrillers.
However, a trial date in 2008 that was brought forward, baffling outbursts by accused Abdul Razak Baginda’s wife, lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s initial steadfastness over his client’s (Razak) innocence and later discharging of himself (all these were reported in the media mind you) ….all these posed too much questions that I can’t ignore.
So now the trial is postponed for a month. Am not surprised if at the next trial date some more glitches will come up and more postponements happen. So are you surprised by the second para in The Star’s report today?
In the meantime, her family has filed an RM100mil civil suit against the Government of Malaysia as well as the three defendants in her murder trial which began Monday.
Altantuya murder trial: Court rejects move for Najib, private eye to testify
Posted by brcsm under the sailNo Comments
posted by James, source from nst news, 24/07/08
SHAH ALAM: Private investigator P. Balasubramaniam and Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak will not be called to testify in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial.
High Court judge Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin yesterday rejected counsel Karpal Singh’s application to reopen the case and recall witnesses.
(The prosecution had closed its case on June 23.)
Karpal, who is holding a watching brief for Altantuya’s family and the Mongolian government, also sought to call three others mentioned in Balasubramaniam’s statutory declaration, which was filed earlier this month, to give evidence.
They include Deputy Superintendent of Police Musa Safri, lawyer Dhiren Rene Norendra and a police officer identified only as DSP Idris.
Karpal’s application which was filed on Monday, was supposed to be heard yesterday before the submissions at the end of the prosecution stage.
Deputy public prosecutor Tun Abd Majid Tun Hamzah, however, raised preliminary objections saying the motion should not be heard.
“The two statutory declarations in question are hearsay. If anyone were to file this motion to reopen the case, it should be the person who made the statutory declaration,” said Tun Abd Majid.
“Besides, the statutory declarations are not public documents. Therefore they should not be used.”
Mohd Zaki said the two statutory declarations were being investigated and questioned Karpal if he had locus standi to file the affidavit to reopen the case as he was merely holding a watching brief.
Karpal argued that he had locus standi as he was representing the victim’s family.
Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri, 32, and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, 36, both Special Action Squad members, are charged with murdering Altantuya at Mukim Bukit Raja, Selangor, between 10pm on Oct 19 and 1am the next day. Political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, 47, is charged with abetting them.
Azilah’s counsel Datuk Hazman Ahmad adopted the prosecution’s arguments, while Sirul’s counsel Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin said it was always the purview of the prosecution to decide whom to call as witness and what part of the evidence is credible. Razak’s counsel, Wong Kian Kheong, said Karpal should have gone through the prosecution or the defence counsel to decide to use the statutory declarations.
Later, Hazman who was submitting at the end of the prosecution’s case, said witness Lance Corporal Rohaniza Roslan’s evidence should not be impeached. (The prosecution had applied to impeach Rohaniza’s credibility after they found her evidence in court contradicted her police statement. Rohazniza was Azilah’s ex-girlfriend).
Meanwhile, counsel J. Kuldeep Kumar, who is also representing Azilah, argued that the court should exercise its discretion in favour of Azilah to exclude testimony by witnesses, alleging that Azilah had showed them where the Mongolian woman was shot and blown up.
Submissions continue today.
The delay in trial is not only unfair to the victim’s family but also the three accused, whose innocence is to be presumed until they are proven guilty.
Wasn’t it William Gladstone who who said that Justice Delayed, is Justice Denied? Well, I’d like to add this. Justice Postponed isJustice Perverted!Seditious or Not; You be the JUDGE
Today is a sad day in blogosphere. Raja Petra choosed to remain in jail rather than post bail. This is indeed a sad development. According to news sources his hearing is somewhere near October or November. Personally I believe he was trying to prove a point. At the same time I cannot help but mourn the loss of his presence in the blogging community until his return. I believe he could serve the cause of justice better by remaining outside and keep on writing his excellent blogs.
According to the newspaper report he is charged under the Sedition Act.
Now dear readers please tell me what in the article constitute seditious?. The whole idea of charging RPK is dubious to me. Allow me to explain. The definition of sedition according to dictionary.com is incitement of discontent or rebellion against the government. If you care to analyze the Sedition Act and take it either as a whole or by parts you will see that that the Act is meant to protect the country from elements which could destabilize it. Put it another way it is meant to protect Malaysia, Govt of Malaysia, The Rulers, from anyone who wants to destabilize that institution. Now let me ask you this, What does that got to do with a murder trial?. Because the article implicates Najib?. Well then by that logic then you would have to say that Najib IS THE GOVT OF MALAYSIA. That my friends is the only way that the sedition charge will stand. Otherwise it will not because the sedition act is only meant to protect, I repeat, to protect Malaysia, Govt of Malaysia, Rulers, What was said by Raja Petra (RPK) clearly does not create any ill will between the races in Malaysia. In fact its clear that from the comments received it has united many of different races to seek justice for altantuya. To cap off, the sedition act is meant to ensure peace and harmony between all races in Malaysia. The whole idea is to ensure that there is no subversive elements that could destabilize Malaysia. An idea of who could be properly charged under the Sedition Act is
a) A spy/propagandist who is trying to incite revolt to overthrow the Govt. Bintang Tiga is a good example.
b) Someone who tries to undermine the administration of justice in Malaysia. i.e he writes poison letter saying judges are corrupted
c) Someone who is has questioned the rights in the Fed Constitution. i.e he questions whether the Rulers and Sultan should be abolished.
d) someone who creates tension between the races in Malaysia. i.e by saying Cina balik China, Indian balik India, Melayu balik hutan,
Does someone whose conviction that the murderers of altantuya should be brought to justice be tried under the Sedition Act ?. Funny, and ironic because by charging RPK under the Sedition Act, it is as if they are acknowledging that the Malaysian Govt is indeed involved and implicated in the murder of altantuya. It means that they are saying RPK is saying that the Govt of Msia is involved in the murder of altantuya. let me state this clearly, Razak baginda and Najib is not the Govt of Msia. It is wrong to say otherwise. They do not represent the Malaysian Govt. It will be different if RPK has accused that the Msian Govt has authorized ( ie ordered) the assassination of altantuya. Then the Govt would have a valid ground to charge RPK. Something which you dear readers can see from his post he had done none so. Politically I think it’s a stupid move by the govt. didn’t they realize how influential the blogging scene was in the last general election?. Or they did realize how important the blogging scene was and handled the only way they know how since the precedent was set in Ops Lalang. ie Put the bloggers behind bars. Sigh. It might’ve worked in the 1980s but not now. Not in this day and age of Internet and free information. Stupid, stupid move. I have always said and let me repeat this again. I am not ANTI GOVT, IM JUST AGAINST STUPID ACTIONS. Understand this, the govt right now is on trial, the trial of public opinion. Right now, they have just lost another point due to their own stupidity. At this rate the Opposition need not to do much but to sit by and watch the Govt shoot itself on the foot. Again and Again.
I’ve included Section 3 of the Sedition Act and RPK post for you to be your own judge. Have fun
the relevant section is Section 3 of the Sedition Act
3. Seditious tendency.
(1) A “seditious tendency” is a tendency -
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government;
(b) to excite the subjects of any Ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any Government to attempt to procure in the territory of the Ruler or governed by the Government, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the Ruler of any State or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any State;
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia; or
(f) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III of the Federal Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) an, speech, words, publication or other things shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency -
(a) to show that any Ruler has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures;
(b) to point out errors or defects in any Government or constitution as by law established (except in respect of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative referred to in subsection (1)(f) otherwise than in relation to the implementation of any provision relating thereto) or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of the errors or defects;
(c) except in respect of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative referred to in subsection (1)(f) -
(i) to persuade the subjects of any Ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any Government to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in the territory of such Government as by law established; or
(ii) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of illwill and enmity between different races or classes of the population of the Federation,
if the, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency.
(3) For the purpose of proving the commission of any offence against this the intention of the person charged at the time he did or attempted to do or made any preparation to do or conspired with any person to do any or uttered any seditious words or printed, published, sold, offered for sale, distributed, reproduced or imported any publication or did any other thing shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact the had, or would, if done, have had, or the words, publication or thing had a seditious tendency.
Second is the article entitled Lets send Altantuya murderer to hell. I’ve copied here in verbatim
Let’s send the Altantuya murderers to hell
Posted by Raja Petra
Today, we shall not be talking about politics. We shall also not be talking about race or religion. Today, we shall talk about doing the human thing. Today, let’s discuss how to launch a ‘Justice for Altantuya: restore Malaysia’s dignity’ campaign. And let’s send those bastards who murdered Altantuya to hell where they belong.NO HOLDS BARREDRaja Petra Kamarudin
I had dinner with a few friends last night and on the way to the restaurant another good friend, Din Merican, phoned to fill me in on the details of Dr Setev Shaariibuu’s press conference that was held earlier that day. I listened as Din filled me in on what transpired and could not help but blurt out, “I am a father of two daughters. I can imagine what Shaariibuu must be feeling. Fucking assholes!”“I have three daughters,” Din responded. “These people are animals, bloody animals. Fuck them! Fuck them!” This is what I would call ‘at a loss for words’ — and when you just have to say something but no words can fully describe how you feel, then ‘fuck’ is the only word you can use which will console you enough and make you feel you have expressed your anger and disgust in a most ‘appropriate’ manner.“Hey, don’t insult animals,” I replied. “Animals are cute. I love cats, dogs and horses. These people are worse than animals. Even animals will not do something like this.”“Even pigs can be cute,” my wife who was driving the car butted in and I repeated what she said. “Yes, even pigs are cute. These people are not even the same level as pigs. They are lower than pigs. Melayu babi, the whole lot of them.”I found it very difficult to hold back my tears as Din continued with his narration of what Dr Shaariibuu said at his press conference. Yes, I am a very emotional person as many may have suspected by now. But I can also be very stubborn and stiff-lipped as well when facing an adversary, as the Special Branch officers from Bukit Aman have discovered. I am what the Malays would call ‘marah nyamuk, bakar kelambu’. And I would not hesitate to deny my body food and water as an act of defiance just to prove to my jailors that they may incarcerate my body but they can never own my mind or break my spirit. But hearing what Dr Shaariibuu had to say ‘broke’ me. Even my degil got tamed.“Let’s bring these bastards down,” I told Din. “Let’s launch a ‘Justice for Altanatuya: restore Malaysia’s dignity’ campaign’ or something like that. These assholes must be sent to hell.”Understandably, much of the dinner conversation thereafter was focused on the Altantuya murder. What was most amusing — not that I would classify this tragic murder as ‘amusing’ — is that none at the dinner table are lawyers by profession. But all were able to skilfully ‘argue their case’ as any seasoned lawyer with decades of litigation experience under his or her belt can — or maybe even better than that because not all lawyers are smart (trust me on this one). I always say you need brains to become a lawyer but you do not need to be a lawyer to have brains.Sure, ‘certified’ lawyers would pooh-pooh such ‘coffee shop’ arguments as just that, coffee shop arguments. And have we not overheard and scoffed at many an ‘expert’ at the next table offering his or her legal prognosis to all and sundry who would care to listen? Yes, opinions are like assholes — everybody has one.But there are opinions and there are opinions — and, just like assholes, no two are alike. So, while we value the expert opinions of our ‘learned’ legal eagles (yes, that is what they call each other in court even though they may be arguing — how civil), we too have conducted our own trial by court of public opinion and we have already arrived at our verdict even while the Altantuya murder trial is halfway through and long before we can see the end of what many consider a show-trial in a kangaroo court.Of course, we are not at liberty to say this as this may tantamount to subjudice or contempt of court or something like that (the courts have all sorts of fancy words and phrases to throw at you when they want to send you to jail whenever you differ with their opinion). So I would never dare state that the Altantuya murder trial ‘a show trial in a kangaroo court’ for fear of getting sent to jail. All I am at liberty to say is that many consider the Altantuya murder trial a show-trial in a kangaroo court and leave it at that without declaring whether I too share the opinion of the majority of Malaysians (not sure whether that statement can still get me sent to jail).Anyway, back to the dinner last night and to what all those ‘self-made lawyers’ who never argued even one case in court their entire life had to say. As I said, neither they nor I am a lawyer but I have attended a decade of trials and hearings since the birth of Reformasi in 1998 and my ‘practical experience’ has exposed me to much of what goes on in court. And all I can say is that, and I repeat, while you need brains to become a lawyer, you really do not need to be a lawyer to have brains, as my dinner friends proved last night.It was a long dinner and much was discussed and everyone had an opinion plus, as I said, all skilfully ‘argued their case’. However, to avoid this piece turning into a fifty-page thesis, which may see me getting an honorary law degree (or see me getting sent to jail), allow me to summarise how the ‘case’ was argued last night.First concerns the Affidavit that Razak Baginda submitted to the court during his bail application hearing in the Shah Alam High Court. Justice Segera had initially cautioned Razak’s lawyer that there was no necessity in submitting an Affidavit since it was only a bail application hearing and, anyway, bail is not allowed in murder cases. But the lawyer insisted in pursuing the matter in spite of repeated warnings from the Judge. So the Judge had no choice but to accept the Affidavit as it is the right of the accused to defend himself/herself the way he/she sees fit.Justice Segera then read the Affidavit and remarked that, after reading it, he is even more convinced that Razak is guilty. How then to grant bail, notwithstanding the fact that bail should automatically be denied anyway in cases of murder? Justice Segera was then immediately removed from hearing the case and was replaced by a junior judicial commissioner.Note that Justice Segera is a senior Judge and the most suited to hear this very controversial and high-profile case. Was he removed because he had prejudged the case or because he was now privy to certain information that may influence his decision or because they want to ‘kill’ the Affidavit?This was the first bone of contention. Karpal Singh, who is holding a watching brief on behalf of Altantuya’s family, then raised this matter during the trial and he asked the police officer on the stand as to why they did not investigate the Affidavit since much has been revealed in that document. The police officer replied that they did not investigate the Affidavit because ‘tidak ada arahan dari atas’ (so instructions from the top).This further enhances the belief that there is some very damaging evidence in that Affidavit and which the government is trying to hide. The fact that the Affidavit exists and Karpal raised the matter in court and the police did not deny it — other than explain they did not investigate it because of no instructions from the top — convinces most that something is amiss here.It seems the Affidavit also reveals that Altantuya was camped outside Razak’s house and this caused him to panic. He then went running to Najib, and Rosmah summoned Najib’s ADC, Musa Safri, and instructed him to solve Razak’s problem. Musa then summoned the two police officers currently on trial. So, it appears like Razak and the two police officers are not the only ones involved. Najib, Rosmah and Musa have also been implicated in this entire thing. And why the need for the police officer to declare that he had already killed six people before this if murder was not what was on everyone’s mind?Then the Attorney-General did a very strange thing. Just before the trial started, he made a public announcement that only three people and no others are involved in the murder. This is not only strange but highly irregular as well. It is not the Attorney-General’s job to determine this. This is for the court to decide. Furthermore, the trial had not even started yet so how does the Attorney-General know what is going to surface in the trial? No one has testified yet and until all the testimonies are heard who knows who else is involved and whether the three accused who on trial are even guilty or not? The Attorney-General made it appear like he knows the outcome of the trial even before the trail commenced? How not to feel that the trial is a show-trial?The Sunday morning before the trial was supposed to start, I received a SMS that said the charges against Razak would be withdrawn. At 4.00pm, I received another SMS saying that the entire team of prosecutors will be replaced because they did not agree to drop the charges against Razak. The following morning, the new prosecutor requested a one-month postponement on the excuse that he had just that very morning been told he is taking over the case so he needs time to study the files. The judge gave them a two-week postponement. The SMS may have been inaccurate but the actions thereafter lent credence to the SMS. And this SMS was from a Deep Throat in the Attorney-General’s Chambers so I am not about to just dismiss it as lies and slander.The next point is about where Altantuya’s remains were found, which was deep in the jungles. The three accused deny killing Altantuya yet the police knew exactly where to go to look for the remains. How did the police know where to go when the three denied killing her? Did they use a bomoh? Was there an informer? No, the police just happen to know that deep in the jungles they would find Altantuya’s remains without anyone having to tell them.It makes one wonder whether the police knew where to go because it is a ‘gazetted dumpsite’ where all ‘bumped off’ people are disposed. Does this then mean that the two police officers on trial alongside Razak are police hit men whose job it is to bump people off and then get rid of their bodies at that site where they retrieved Altantuya’s remains? This, of course, remains mere speculation but there is certainly cause for speculation and the evidence all seem to point to this assumption.The whispering amongst those who walk in the corridors of power is that when they went to the ‘dump site’ they retrieved the remains of many others as well. Some say it was the remains of seven people and others say nine. So Altantuya was not the first. There were many others before this, almost ten judging by the remains.This, of course, has never been made public and probably never will. So, until it is, we must assume that the ‘whispering’ is unfounded. But then, what about Razak’s Affidavit we talked about earlier, which stated that the police officer had admitted to killing six people before this. This would then make Altantuya the seventh victim. Against this backdrop, the ‘whispering’ about the police retrieving the remains of seven or nine people begins to sound like very loud whispers.Many other ‘key issues’ raised by my non-lawyer friends, who all argued as if they were conducting the Altantuya murder trial, were matters such as how Altantuya’s immigration records could be erased from the Immigration computers, the letters Najib wrote to the Malaysian embassy supporting Altantuya’s visa application, the photograph of Altantuya, Najib, Razak and Kalimullah taken during Altantuya’s birthday party in the Mandarin Hotel in Singapore, and much more.Rumour has it, and it remains just that, a rumour, is that all this ‘evidence’ has been given to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Okay, maybe Abdullah is using this information to keep Najib in line — which appears to be working seeing that he is constantly licking Abdullah’s hand. But this is not about politics and should not be dealt as such. This is about the Prime Minister of Malaysia withholding crucial evidence in a murder trial. Abdullah is an accessory to murder and burying evidence that will affect the outcome of the trial and interfere in seeing justice done renders Abdullah as guilty as those currently on trial and those who also should be on trial but are not.I really wish I could write about all the above which was discussed by those at the dinner table last night. Unfortunately, since the trial is still ongoing, I will not be able to talk about any of these matters. The best I can do is relate what those at the dinner table discussed last night and leave it at that without giving my opinion. And the above is what was discussed by those who are not lawyers and never once in their lives argued any case in court.Of course, since all these people are not lawyers, most of what they said is based purely on logic and not on points of law. It is actually quite ridiculous that people not tutored in matters of law would attempt to dissect and analyse the Altantuya murder trial and pass judgement as if they are trained and certified lawyers. Anyway, as I said, opinions are like assholes and every one has one so we should not take too much notice of what my dinner friends said last night. Meanwhile, read what my friend, Din Merican, e-mailed to me this morning:
******************************************
In ancient times, nations go to war at the slightest provocation. In the 21st century, fortunately, we are more civilised than our progenitors, although there are still exceptions. After all, we are members of the United Nations and, I am told, we subscribe to the UN Declaration on Human Rights. Yet, we in Malaysia, treat foreign nationals with total disregard for compassion and human decency. Are we a bunch of cynics? I wonder.Take the case of the beating-up of the Indonesian karate/judo coach and the brutality towards, and extortion of, Indonesian guest workers by Rela, the murder of a Mongolian national, etc. Is the way we deal with our neighbours and other nation states? I wonder whether we are a nation of laws or a country run on the basis of the law of the jungle.Our Prime Minister, Badawi, and his Foreign Minister (at that time Syed Hamid) did not have the courtesy to reply to the letters from their counterparts in Ulan Bator, Mongolia, seeking a fair trial and justice for the family of the late Altantyua Shaariibuu. Too busy maybe? Surely not!It is going to be tragic for Malaysia’s image if the Altantuya family cannot get justice for the brutal murder of their loved one. How can we blow to smithereens a human being, someone’s loved one, and a mother to two young children, using an explosive which is only utilised in times of war to destroy bunkers, bridges and buildings? This is unheard off anywhere in the world. This case, therefore, has a lot of international implications, especially when the deed was done by ‘servants’ of this country.We are being viewed as arrogant by the Indonesians, Thais, Singaporeans, as well as by many of our neighbours. Now, we add to this list the Mongolians. How indecent and irresponsible of the PM and his Foreign Minister for not even acknowledging the receipt of letters from their Mongolian counterparts. Who are we protecting?There is no point in Badawi trying to convince us that his Administration is keen to restore the image of the judiciary. He cannot even fix his own Police Force and the AG’s Office. Frankly, Malaysians should have sent Badawi and his cohorts in BN out of office in the last general election.The mainstream media is just hopeless in the cause of justice for Altantuya and dignity for Malaysia. Malaysians and civil society movements must now pressure the Badawi government to expose the real culprit behind this murder and bring to closure this long and costly trial. Let justice prevail and let us put an end to the culture of impunity, where the powerful and politically connected are above the Law.As a father of six kids (of whom three are girls, including a 16-year old) and a grandfather, I feel for Dr. Setev Shaariibuu and his family. I was at the press conference on April 24 at the Office of Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim and I personally saw the agony on Dr. Shaariibuu’s face.It is time for Malaysians to push this issue and not allow the murderers who walk in the corridors of power to get away with this vile and evil deed unscathed. It is time to ‘storm the Bastille’. It is time we sent these sorry excuses for human beings to hell where they deserve to be
What “miracles” could the new prosecution team produce to ensure a “fair trial”, which could not be accomplished by the previous prosecution team? After all, shouldn’t all criminal prosecutions and proceedings be conducted fairly regardless of the personalities in the prosecution team?….
This is the two-parter according to the author, Amer Hamzah Arshad, who is also a member of the Bar Human Rights Committee.
OPINION: To ensure a fair trial?
by Amer Hamzah Arshad
The Malaysian Bar websiteArticle 145(3) of the Federal Constitution (FC) empowers the Attorney General (AG) with discretionary powers to institute and conduct any criminal prosecution. In order to ensure that the AG can prosecute effectively, Section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) allows the AG as the Public Prosecutor to appoint “fit and proper persons” to be Deputy Public Prosecutors (DPP) who shall be under the general control and direction of the AG himself, to handle criminal prosecutions and proceedings. It is pursuant to these provisions that the office of the Deputy Public Prosecutor was created, whereby the DPPs may exercise all or any of the rights and powers vested in or exercisable by the AG except for any rights or powers expressed to be exercisable by the AG personally.
What could be gathered from the above paragraph is that, when it comes to criminal prosecutions, any DPP should be competent to conduct any criminal prosecution on behalf of the AG. The usage of the expression “fit and proper persons” in aforesaid Section 376 would necessarily mean that all the DPPs who are appointed must be persons of high calibre, integrity, and ultimately someone who is able to ensure that all criminal prosecutions and proceedings would be prosecuted fairly.
The necessity to prosecute criminal cases in a fair and proper manner need not be stated as it is synonymous to and should always be the bedrock of any “prosecution”. At least this is what we are supposed to believe.
The recent twist of events in the murder trial of Altantuya concerning the change of the prosecution team, has sparked intense debate amongst the public. Such reaction is not unexpected given the wide media coverage of the trial and the personalities who are involved as well as those who are rumoured to be involved in the case. Given this background, one would assume that all parties concerned in the trial, especially the prosecution, would conduct their affairs in a transparent manner so as to avoid any unnecessary speculation. Therefore, when the High Court was informed by the prosecution that a new team will take over the conduct of the criminal prosecution at the eleventh hour, one could not be faulted for suspecting that something was amiss. While a change in the prosecution team or DPPs in a criminal prosecution is not uncommon, the manner in which such change was made and coupled with the fact that the lead DPP (of the new prosecution team) could not give an answer when the High Court judge suggested that he should work with the previous team for the first few days since he was not familiar with the case, only fuelled further speculation.
Even the AG’s explanation of the matter i.e. that such a move is to ensure that all parties will receive a “fair trial” is somewhat disturbing and perplexing. Does the AG think that the Malaysian public is gullible and would accept such statement at face value without any question? Unfortunately for the AG, this writer as well as the majority, if not all, of the Malaysian public are no longer susceptible to such a lame explanation.
What could have probably been going through the AG’s mind when he made that statement? Did the AG realise that by making such a statement, he is indirectly casting aspersions towards the previous prosecution team as if they are unable to conduct the prosecution in a fair manner? What “miracles” could the new prosecution team produce to ensure a “fair trial”, which could not be accomplished by the previous prosecution team? After all, shouldn’t all criminal prosecutions and proceedings be conducted fairly regardless of the personalities in the prosecution team? How could the change of the personalities in the prosecution team then be equated to a “fair trial?” These are only a few of the many questions that are running through the minds of the Malaysian public, and perhaps the international community as well.
Last but not least, the decision of the AG to change the prosecution team at the very last minute reminds me of what Darth Vader said to the Emperor in Return of the Jedi, “What is thy bidding, my master”. To the AG, this writer would like to part with this question, “Quo vadis”? And for God’s sake, please do not reply, “To ensure a fair trial”.
(This first appeared on Wednesday 06 June 2007 on the website of the Malaysian Bar)
THE recent challenge by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s defence team against the validity of the Attorney-General’s certificate to transfer his sodomy case from the Sessions Court to the High Court has again highlighted the need to seriously examine the role of the Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General, it was argued, was not competent to issue the certificate as a report, which had been made against him for alleged tampering with evidence in Anwar’s first sodomy case in 1988, was still being investigated. The Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court ruled last Friday that the certificate was invalid.
The scope of the Attorney-General’s powers in Malaysia has long been a subject of debate and controversy. He is the chief legal adviser to the government and is responsible for advising ministers involved in legal proceedings in their official capacity.
But as public prosecutor, he is also entrusted with power, which he uses at his discretion, to start, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before a Syariah court, a native court or a court-martial.
His dual role has posed a real problem. A conflict of interest is bound to arise if he has to institute criminal proceedings against members of the government.
The ongoing Altantuya Shaariibuu prosecution, surrounded by rumours involving important political figures, is a case in point.
Some countries in the Commonwealth, such as Australia and Canada, do not have such a problem. There the job of reviewing evidence, and beginning and conducting prosecution of offences, is entrusted to a Director of Public Prosecutions.
Since he is unencumbered by the sort of duties and functions the Attorney-General has, he is kept away from direct government influence and is able to act with impartiality in assessing whether or not to prosecute a case. His decision is based on whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction on the evidence available and whether it is in the public interest for the prosecution to begin.
The Attorney-General in such a system would be a government minister. This would remove the structural defect in the present Malaysian system which constantly invites accusations that the Attorney-General is motivated by bias or is being selective in instituting criminal proceedings.
If he were made a part of the political party in power, the Attorney-General would not need to pretend to be neutral. Though not directly involved in deciding whether to institute criminal prosecutions, he should be responsible for overseeing and superintending the prosecution services of the country and should answer to Parliament for the conduct of the Director of Public Prosecutions and of his department.
There is currently no formal mechanism requiring the Attorney-General to account for his conduct in relation to prosecutions of criminal proceedings. In spite of the wide powers he wields, he has no duty to report to the prime minister, cabinet or Parliament.
There has been no call for him to account for the failure of a number of high-profile prosecutions, which commenced with much fanfare but ended up being a waste of public funds.
Last year, Tan Sri Eric Chia, the former managing director of Perwaja Steel, was acquitted after 43 days of trial without his defence being called.
In acquitting the accused, the presiding High Court judge heavily criticised the conduct of the prosecution, especially their failure to call several key witnesses who had obvious knowledge of the material elements of the case.
With reference to particular key witnesses from Japan, the judge questioned whether it was the Japanese witnesses who were “reluctant” to come or “the prosecution was the one reluctant to bring them here”.
The prosecution of Koh Kim Teck, a businessman, and his two bodyguards, who were charged with murdering 14-year-old Chinese national Xu Jian Huang, and who were acquitted in 2005, is another case in point.
After a trial lasting 36 days and with 39 prosecution witnesses having given evidence, the presiding judge found that the prosecution had not brought forward any evidence which could implicate the accused in the murder and that there had been no “prima facie” case made out to warrant the defence being called to answer the charge.
The prosecution had apparently omitted to call material witnesses, including the investigating officer for the case and Koh’s driver who had reportedly given a cautioned statement that he had seen both bodyguards throw Xu into the swimming pool where he was eventually found. Two other material witnesses who were present in the house were also not called.
Yet another was the prosecution for the murder of Noritta Samsudin, where the accused was acquitted after 29 days of trial. The prosecution appealed against the acquittal right up to the Federal Court.
In dismissing the appeal, the Federal Court noted that there was a gaping hole in the prosecution’s case, where it failed to sufficiently account for the likelihood of there being another person present at Noritta Samsudin’s condominium unit who could also have committed the crime. No one else has been charged for the murder.
Any discussion on expensive and long-running criminal trials would not be complete without reference to the Irene Fernandez trial which spanned seven years and took over 300 days to complete.
It is still not over for the Tenaganita director, who was convicted in 2003 of publishing false news about the ill-treatment of detainees in camps for illegal immigrants. Her appeal against this conviction to the High Court has been the subject of numerous delays and has yet to be heard.
The Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial will also go on record as one of the longest trials in Malaysian history.
After more than 150 days, Abdul Razak Baginda was acquitted of abetting the murder and discharged on Oct 31, while the two police officers charged with her murder have been called to enter their defence.
As it is the taxpayers’ funds that ultimately pay for all criminal prosecutions, they have a vested interest in knowing how such cases, which appear to be ill-prepared, can be brought to trial.
It is imperative that the Attorney General’s wide powers be subject to close scrutiny and not be permitted to be exercised arbitrarily.
If the government is truly serious in wanting to improve and restore public confidence in the administration of justice in this country, it must be prepared to review the presently unfettered powers of the Attorney-General.
**Raja Aziz Addruse is a former Bar Council president and former president of the National Human Rights Society (Hakam). Ding Jo-Ann is a Kuala Lumpur-based lawyer.
No comments:
Post a Comment