Mahathir outmanoeuvres has more to it than meets the eye
"Who gave, and what were, the alleged instructions? Why was DSP Musa not called to testify?" he had asked, referring to Musa, who was at the time of the murder a top aide to then deputy prime minister Najib.
The lawyer pointed out that these are questions which are being debated by the public. Despite Azilah and Sirul's conviction, the trial had raised a number of unanswered questions.ustice Suriyadi Halim Omar, in his full 88-page-judgment released recently, said while the defence lawyers complained that Musa's testimony, if called upon by the prosecution, could have provided details regarding Abdul Razak Baginda's sworn affidavit, the court replied that they are satisfied the (affidavit's) contents are merely confirmatory in nature.
“It is only useful to Abdul Razak. It merely confirmed evidence adduced from Altantuya Shaariibuu's cousin and friend that he had had a relationship with the deceased.
“We are therefore unable to see how much more details DSP Musa could produce that would contribute to the respondents' defences. The calling of DSP Musa (left) - let alone the tendering of the text messages - would not have affected the evidence pertaining to Abdul Razak's relationship one tiny bit.
“We also observed that DSP Musa never instructed Azilah how to assist Abdul Razak, but was merely told to meet up with him, and Azilah acted on his own discretion and sensibilities,” Justice Suriyadi wrote in the judgment which found both Azilah and Sirul guilty of murdering Altantuya on Jan 13.
The court concluded that the prosecution's move not to call Musa, or the non-tendering of the alleged text messages, had not in any way caused unfairness to the duo, and failed to see how the presumption of adverse inference under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act could be applicable.
Why did Judge Mohd Zaki dismissed to call Najib and Balasubramaniam despite his written declaration, which implicated Najib as a witness in the trial.
Abdul Razak's affidavit written Shafi Adullah during the bail proceeding had not only resulted in the political analyst's acquittal, but as the lawyers for Sirul claimed, it had also condemned their clients to the noose.
The affidavit was never shown or made available to the press by Abdul Razak's lawyers or the court. Only a minor portion had been revealed following the acquittal.
Justice Suriyadi in his judgment stressed that crimes were usually committed in secret, and where concealment was highly probable.
“If direct evidence is insisted under all circumstances, a successful prosecution of vicious criminals - who have committed heinous crimes in secret or secluded places - would be near impossible.
“In this case, not only was the heinous crime committed at a secluded place, but the deceased's body had been blasted beyond recognition. Only fragments of bones were found,” he noted.
The prosecution's case, the judge said, squares entirely on circumstantial evidence.
The discovery of the crime scene and certain items owned by the deceased, along with established call-logs showing Azilah as having made calls from the same crime scene, had resulted in his defence of alibi being unsustainable.
“By no account could Azilah have been at Bukit Aman or Wangsa Maju (the alleged alibi) at the material time. Azilah's alibi was a non-starter as his failure to call the maker to prove the entry had left him high and dry.”
Meanwhile, Justice Suriyadi said Sirul's testimony did not carry much weight as Altantuya's jewellery and a blood stained slipper had been found.
Abdul Razak's father had whispered something and the accused appeared agitated. When the court adjourned for recess, the accused banged and kicked the door, yelling: “You can die, Pak Lah! Die, Pak Lah! I am innocent. I am innocent.”
In a startling new twist to the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder case, WikiLeaks had revealed diplomatic cables hinting that former prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, known as Pak Lah, might had attempted to fix up his then deputy, Najib Tun Razak.
The case which haunts Najib to this day, had come close to derailing his ambition of becoming prime minister when one of his confidants, Abdul Razak Baginda, was charged with abetting the murder of the Mongolian national.
Razak was eventually acquitted while Najib had forced Abdullah to hand over the reins after Barisan Nasional’s (BN) dismal performance in the 2008 general election.
The Federal Court has ruled that Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar are guilty of murdering Altantuya Shaariibuu. Sentencing them to the gallows offers some measure of justice to Altantuya and her family, but despite the highest court’s ruling, the wound that this case has afflicted on this country’s soul has not been healed.
People are still demanding answers to many unanswered questions. There can be no closure to this gruesome and senseless murder until they know why she was killed in the first place.
Ordinary men and women want to know if Altantuya was killed by Azilah and Sirul under instruction from someone else. They want to know if the offer of RM100,000 to Sirul (by Sirul's own admission) was true, and who made the offer.
They want to know why there were changes to the prosecutors and the High Court judge hearing the case.
They want to know if Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak knew Altantuya despite his much publicised mosque declaration that he did not.
They want to know why Bala the private investigator and his family were asked to leave the country.
Federal Court judge Datuk Suryadi Halim Omar reportedly said Najib’s former aide-de-camp DSP Musa Safri never instructed Azilah on how to assist Razak Baginda, that Azilah was merely told to meet with him.
How does the judge know this for sure? Azilah could have said this but Musa was never called as a witness.
Did the judge have access to Musa’s police statement, or to some other reliable piece of evidence adduced at the High Court?
It seems to me the court accepted that Musa was the one who gave instructions to Azilah, but it somehow came to the conclusion that the instruction was of a friendly and innocuous nature; something like, “Do what you can to assist Razak.”
That bothers me. Altantuya was here to ask for money from Razak that she claimed was due to her.
She was not waging a war against the country. She did not bring along commandos from Mongolia to kill someone if her demands were not met.
Razak/Musa could easily have asked a friend to mediate and see Altantuya on their behalf. Even if they had wanted a man in uniform, someone from the Cheras police station – helped perhaps by an immigration officer – would have sufficed.
All they needed to do was persuade Altantuya to leave the country peacefully if her claim was frivolous. I am anxious to know what was on Musa’s mind when he decided to introduce Razak to Azila and Sirul.
When you ask people whose job is to eliminate and destroy to “assist” you, and they are in possession of C4 explosives, you cannot expect them to engage in peaceful and polite negotiations. You expect them to do exactly what they were trained to do: take orders, ask no questions and kill if necessary.
Many people want to know what were Musa’s exact instructions. Did Musa, for example, give any kind of caveat to say no harm should come to the woman?
Some are happy with the Attorney-General’s explanation for why he chose not to call on Musa during the trial, and obviously the judges are within their rights to convict a murderer without any known motive. But in the real world, nothing like that ever happens.
In the real world, a prosecutor would want to present the full story, for only a madman kills for no reason. Everyone else has a motive for doing something.
That is why there has to be closure for this case. Our country will forever be seen as callous with human lives , with no regard for the truth, until the mystery surrounding Altantuya’s murder is solved.
I believe there are things we don’t know about the murder, and the conduct of the police and the AG regarding the matter has hardly been beyond reproach.
Justice is about more than compliance with the letter of the law. It is more than just a court decision, for the court can only do so much based on the materials the AG and the police put forward.
Justice in this case requires the country to have an independent inquiry to ascertain why the case unfolded as it did and to determine if the roles played by the police and the AG were aboveboard.
Although we cannot depend too much on Royal Commissions of Inquiry nowadays to determine the truth, if we can get enough men of courage and integrity to conduct the inquiry we might be able to get some justice.
So far we have found two men guilty. There could be more if the truth were allowed to finally surface.
I may be a lone voice in seeking to know more about the murder of Altantuya, but for our system of government to operate well, we need to have enough conviction to raise questions and get answers when we are in doubt.
We need to defend what is just and right. I hope the opposition leader (who has been unusually silent on this matter) will be willing to support my proposal for a full inquiry.
We need to make sure that we have not left important clues behind, and remove all doubt that the stakeholders in our justice system might have been less than honest in dealing with the case.His (Sirul's) car that was detected at the Kota Damansara toll booth en route to Puncak Alam had totally discredited his unsworn testimony,” he added.
He further said the court was absolutely satisfied by the circumstantial evidence by the prosecution that there can only be one inescapable conclusion, which is that the prosecution had successfully proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, and hence, the mandatory death sentence was restored.
While Azilah appeared in court when the verdict was announced by the Federal Court on Jan 13, Sirul was however missing and he has since been arrested by Australian immigration in Brisbane.
In the WikiLeaks disclosure to the Asian Sentinel, the conspiracy theory implicating Abdullah was found in a February 2008 cable from the US embassy’s political section chief Mark D Clark.
During the trial, Clark wrote, Razak “appeared uneasy throughout the morning session of court on Feb 20. Razak’s father, Abdullah Malim Baginda, had whispered something to him shortly before the trial had begun for the morning and apparently upset the accused.
“Razak remained quiet throughout the morning hearing, but just after the noon recess was called and as he was leaving the courtroom he kicked and banged the door and yelled ‘You can die, Pak Lah! Die, Pak Lah! I am innocent. I am innocent’. He was later seen crying before his lawyer while his mother attempted to comfort him.”
‘The Sun told to withdraw copies’
The embassy official also noted that local newspapers and the government news service Bernama had reported the outburt, but did not print his statements.
“The short-lived exception was the English language newspaper The Sun, which included the quotations from Razak in its early morning Feb 21 edition. Sources at the newspaper confirmed to us in confidence that the Ministry of Internal Security (Home Ministry) compelled The Sun to withdraw and recall thousands of copies of their first-run paper in which the original quote was included. Prime Minister Abdullah serves concurrently as Minister of Internal Security.”
Clark said that speculation was rife in Malaysia’s online community on what had sparked off the outburst, including conspiracy theories alleging that the Prime Minister’s Office had urged Razak to implicate Najib, and in return, the accused would be spared the guilty verdict and mandatory death sentence.
“Regardless, the Internal Security Ministry would want to limit any possibly inflammatory reference to the prime minister at the trial, and particularly at this juncture due to the proximity of Malaysia’s general election to be held on March 8.
“Any connection between the prime minister and the murder trial would be scandalous. The GOM (Government of Malaysia) reportedly has worked hard to ‘drive (the case) from public view’… and is not about to allow the case to influence the coming election,” read the cable.
Based on the cables provided by WikiLeaks, the Asian Sentinel reported that the US embassy here followed the trial closely and frequently discussed whether Najib was involved in the killing.
The diplomats, like much of the public, also speculated that the trial was being deliberately delayed and feared what one cable called “prosecutorial misconduct” that was being politically manipulated.
The embassy officials had based their concerns on sources within the prosecution, government and the political opposition.
‘Razak’s wife in contact with Anwar’
The cables, stated the report, were replete with accounts of a long series of meetings with Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim, who repeatedly told the Americans that Najib was connected to corrupt practices in the acquisition of submarines as well as the purchase of Sukhoi Su-MCM-30 Flanker fighter jets from Russia.
Anwar, it added, also called attention to Najib’s connection to the Altantuya case.
In a Jan 24, 2007 cable marked “secret”, it was written that “perceived irregularities on the part of prosecutors and the court, and the alleged destruction of some evidence, suggested to many that the case was subject to strong political pressure intended to protect Najib”.
On Feb 1, 2008, Clark wrote that a deputy prosecutor had informed him “there was almost no chance of winning guilty verdicts in the ongoing trial of defendants Razak, a close adviser to Najib, and two police officers. She described the trial as interminably long.”
“Clark called the trial a ‘a prosecutorial embarrassment’ from its inception, leading many to speculate that the ineptitude was by design. On the eve of the trial, Malaysia’s Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail dropped his lead prosecutors and replaced them with less experienced attorneys. Similarly, a lead counsel for one of the defendants abruptly resigned before the trial ‘because of (political) attempts to interfere with a defence he had proposed, in particular to protect an unnamed third party.’”
the Chief Justice said the objective was to enable the judges to exchange views aimed at improving the Judiciary furtherSaid Datuk Seri Najib Razak.a technicalmatter did not involve the judiciary like my SMS Shafee Abdullah,Judge Zaki dismiss Najib as a witness
According to evidence introduced at the trial and other sources, Abdul Razak contacted Najib’s chief of staff, Musa Safri, to ask Najib’s bodyguards, Azilah and Sirul, to “do something” about Altantuya. Musa was not required to appear as a witness. Deputy Commander Mastor Mohd Ariff, an associate of the two bodyguards, said members of the unit were required to follow all orders of their superiors without question, describing the unit’s members as “like robots” who would only take orders from their superiors. Abdul Razak, a civilian and friend of Najib’s, was not a superior officer.According to an affidavit filed by Abdul Razak, Azilah contacted Abdul Razak after Altantuya’s disappearance to say that “tonight encik (sir), you can sleep well.”
Testimony by the murdered woman’s cousin indicated that immigration records of Altantuya and the two Mongolian companions who had come toMalaysia with her to confront Abdul Razak disappeared from the government’s immigration files. She also responded to a question that she had seen a picture of Altantuya having dinner with Najib before she was hurriedly hushed up by both prosecution and defense lawyers.
Nonetheless, Judge Mohd Zaki dismissed a bid in July to call Najib as a witness in the trial. Zaki also refused to call Balasubramaniam despite his written declaration, which implicated Najib in the events leading up to the murder. In addition to other lurid details, Balasubramaniam described text messages between Najib and Abdul Razak in which the latter was asking for help to avoid arrest.
Later, a series of text messages was made public indicating that Najib had been involved in finding a lawyer, Shafee Abdullah, to represent Abdul Razak. One message from Shafee to Najib said: "We provided (the police) everything, including old PDAs and notebooks and a couple of bills. Nothing incriminating." Malaysia Today said the exchange raises questions if anything "incriminating" was kept from the police.
Besides allegations that Altantuya was the lover of both men, the case has raised additional concerns of corruption at the top of the United Malays National Organisation, the leading political party in the national ruling coalition. The Mongolian woman appears to have been the translator on a controversial transaction in which Malaysia, with Najib as defense minister, paid €1 billion for French submarines, netting a company tied to Abdul Razak US$111 million in “commissions.”
two reports saying that Najib’s aide-de-camp, Musa Safri, had ordered two policemen to “deal with Altantuya” when she had approached her lover over her share of commissions.
The Shah Alam High Court last year found the two policemen guilty of blowing up Altantuya’s body in a Shah Alam jungle three years ago and sent them to the gallows, but cleared Abdul Razak of abetting in the murder.
Their appeal against the death sentence is pending in the Court of Appeal.
Shaariibuu last month dropped a suit against the federal government to push them to appeal against Abdul Razak’s acquittal.
However, he is still suing the government as well as Abdul Razak and the two cops for RM100 million over Altantuya’s death.
His lawyer, Karpal Singh, told reporters previously that Shaariibuu has indicated that he is willing to settle the matter out of court.
He is worried for the future of Altantuya’s two young sons who are currently living with him and his equally ill wife.
“With so many closely linked to Najib in this murder, it is impossible and irresponsible for Najib to now wash his hands off this mater (sic) and act as if none of this tragedy has befallen my daughter and my family,”
According to evidence introduced at the trial and other sources, Abdul Razak contacted Najib’s chief of staff, Musa Safri, to ask Najib’s bodyguards, Azilah and Sirul, to “do something” about Altantuya. Musa was not required to appear as a witness. Deputy Commander Mastor Mohd Ariff, an associate of the two bodyguards, said members of the unit were required to follow all orders of their superiors without question, describing the unit’s members as “like robots” who would only take orders from their superiors. Abdul Razak, a civilian and friend of Najib’s, was not a superior officer.According to an affidavit filed by Abdul Razak, Azilah contacted Abdul Razak after Altantuya’s disappearance to say that “tonight encik (sir), you can sleep well.”
Testimony by the murdered woman’s cousin indicated that immigration records of Altantuya and the two Mongolian companions who had come toMalaysia with her to confront Abdul Razak disappeared from the government’s immigration files. She also responded to a question that she had seen a picture of Altantuya having dinner with Najib before she was hurriedly hushed up by both prosecution and defense lawyers.
Nonetheless, Judge Mohd Zaki dismissed a bid in July to call Najib as a witness in the trial. Zaki also refused to call Balasubramaniam despite his written declaration, which implicated Najib in the events leading up to the murder. In addition to other lurid details, Balasubramaniam described text messages between Najib and Abdul Razak in which the latter was asking for help to avoid arrest.
Later, a series of text messages was made public indicating that Najib had been involved in finding a lawyer, Shafee Abdullah, to represent Abdul Razak. One message from Shafee to Najib said: "We provided (the police) everything, including old PDAs and notebooks and a couple of bills. Nothing incriminating." Malaysia Today said the exchange raises questions if anything "incriminating" was kept from the police.
Besides allegations that Altantuya was the lover of both men, the case has raised additional concerns of corruption at the top of the United Malays National Organisation, the leading political party in the national ruling coalition. The Mongolian woman appears to have been the translator on a controversial transaction in which Malaysia, with Najib as defense minister, paid €1 billion for French submarines, netting a company tied to Abdul Razak US$111 million in “commissions.”
two reports saying that Najib’s aide-de-camp, Musa Safri, had ordered two policemen to “deal with Altantuya” when she had approached her lover over her share of commissions.
The Shah Alam High Court last year found the two policemen guilty of blowing up Altantuya’s body in a Shah Alam jungle three years ago and sent them to the gallows, but cleared Abdul Razak of abetting in the murder.
Their appeal against the death sentence is pending in the Court of Appeal.
Shaariibuu last month dropped a suit against the federal government to push them to appeal against Abdul Razak’s acquittal.
However, he is still suing the government as well as Abdul Razak and the two cops for RM100 million over Altantuya’s death.
His lawyer, Karpal Singh, told reporters previously that Shaariibuu has indicated that he is willing to settle the matter out of court.
He is worried for the future of Altantuya’s two young sons who are currently living with him and his equally ill wife.
“With so many closely linked to Najib in this murder, it is impossible and irresponsible for Najib to now wash his hands off this mater (sic) and act as if none of this tragedy has befallen my daughter and my family,”
The protracted nature of the case, Clark said, led “at least one regional newspaper to speculate that ‘the case is being deliberately delayed to drive it from public view. Malaysia’s daily newspapers rarely mention the case’s latest developments, and it is unprecedented in Malaysian judicial history that a murder trial could drag on for seven months and still not give the defence an opportunity to present its case. Such an environment has led many to conclude that the case was too politically sensitive to yield a verdict before the anticipated general election.”
Meanwhile, a January 2007 cable touched on Razak’s affidavit confirming that he sought the help of Musa Safri, later identified as Najib’s aide-de-camp, in ridding him of the jilted woman, and in other cables pointed out that Musa had never been called for questioning.
In another cable, dated May 16, 2007, Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh, a deputy home minister in
Abdullah’s cabinet, told US Embassy officials that he was “certain that government prosecutors would limit their trial activities to the murder itself and the three defendants; prosecutors would not follow up on allegations of related corruption or other suspects”.
In a cable marked “secret” on Jan 27, 2007, embassy officials wrote: “In December we heard from one of (Anwar’s) lawyers that Razak’s wife was in contact with Anwar and (Anwar’s wife Dr )Wan Azizah (Wan Ismail), suggesting one possible source for Anwar’s information.”
In April 2009, two police officers from the special operations force, Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri, 30, and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, 35, were found guilty of murdering Altantuya.
The murder was tied closely to the US$1 billion acquisition of French submarines by the Malaysian defence ministry during Najib’s tenure as defence minister. Altantuya reportedly acted as a translator on the transaction, which netted Razak’s company a €114 million “commission” on the purchase.
According to reports, Altantuya had been offered US$500,000 for her part in translating and after she was jilted, she vainly demanded payment. In a letter she had written, made public after her death, Altantuya said she regretted attempting to “blackmail” Razak.
French lawyers are investigating whether some of the €114 million was kicked back to French or Malaysian politicians
Malaysia Today, run by self-exiled blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin yesterday announced a team-up with renowned whistleblower website WikiLeaks, led by Julian Assange.
Raja Petra’s controversial blog has rocked Malaysian politics since its creation in August 2004, exposing everything from corrupt low-ranked civil servants to the alleged involvement of Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor in the Altantuya Shariibuu murder case in November 2006.
His posts had even resulted in him being arrested under the draconian Internal Security Act in September 2008.
Just recently, Raja Petra granted an interview to the Umno-owned TV3, urging authorities to investigate a statutory declaration claiming that Rosmah had been personally involved in the brutal murder of Altantuya.
The Malaysian prime minister and his wife Rosmah Mansor were also accused of being involved in the murder of a Mongolian translator, who had helped in the communications with DCNS. The 28-year old Altantuya Shaariibuu was murdered in KL by two former bodguards of the Malaysian first couple.
Both men, who were members of an elite police squad, have been sentenced to hang but the nation is unconvinced as they had no motive to kill her. The question still raging in Malaysia is, who ordered the killing?
The Parisian hearing will not dwell on the Altantuya murder but DCNS is likely to be grilled on her role in the deal.
Altantuya, who was shot in head and exploded with military C4 explosives, has become an international icon symbolising the ruthlessness and desperation in the murky world of international arms wheeling-and-dealing. She is also a reflection of the level of debauchery amongst the Umno elite. Umno is Najib’s party and has ruled Malaysia for 5 decades.
Under the 2000 OECD convention of which France is a party, anyone French individual or company found to be involved in corrupt deals with foreign governments can be punished with 10 years imprisonment and a Euro 150,000 fine. This ruling provided the impetus for the SUARAM move to try and recover taxpayers’ money lost through improper transactions.
The Department of Immigration and the Attorney-General's department have declined to comment on the Sirul case.
The legal and diplomatic stalemate comes as Sirul's mother, Piah Samat, 74, said "utter nonsense" has been spread about her son.
There are some who allege he has been paid off when he didn't receive anything," the Malaysian Harakah Daily quoted her as saying. "I just pray to God he will be safe."
Opposition MPs in Malaysia have called on Sirul to publicly reveal the motive behind the murder of Ms Shaariibuu.
Ms Shaariibuu, described as a sophisticated jet-setting party girl, worked as a translator in the later stages of negotiations over the controversial $2 billion purchase of two French- and Spanish-built Scorpene submarines when Mr Najib was defence minister.
Mr Najib strongly denies ever meeting Ms Shaariibuu or having any link to her. His government denies any wrongdoing in the submarine purchases which are the subject of an investigation by magistrates in France.
Sirul's arrest has created a diplomatic dilemma for the federal government as it is expected to strongly argue that Malaysia should not hang Sydney grandmother Maria Elvira Pinto Exposto if she is convicted after being arrested in Kuala Lumpur allegedly in the possession of illegal drugs.
Malaysia has said it will take legal action in Australia if the government does not extradite Sirul under an extradition treaty between the two countries.
The only course of appeal remaining for Sirul is for a Malaysian sultan to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment, which could reopen the possibility of extradition
An unbelievable spectacle took place in the bizarre murder trial of Mongolian beauty Altantuya Shaaribuu on June 29. Karpal Singh, the lawyer for the victim’s family, attempted to ask a question about a “government official” allegedly seen in a photograph with the victim. At that point, both the prosecutor and the defense lawyer sprang to their feet in unison to block the question.
This resulted in a shouting match, with Singh on one side, the victim’s cousin on the stand, and the combined forces of the prosecution and defense blocking the line of questioning.
Earlier, a similar division of forces occurred when a Mongolian witness – a girlfriend of the victim told the court that immigration entry computer records of the deceased and her two Mongolian companions, including the witness, had been mysteriously erased. When Singh asked the court to take proper note of this highly irregular event, both the prosecution and defense objected to the evidence as irrelevant, and insisted that it be expunged.
Now, isn’t that a strange phenomenon? A prosecutor is supposed to seek justice for the deceased victim’s family against the murderers, so how come the prosecutor is now ganging up with defense lawyers to oppose the victim’s family lawyer? Is this a case of prosecutor vs. defense or a case of prosecutor plus defense vs. victim’s family? Obviously, the prosecution and defense seem to have plenty of common interests. What are those common interests?
The answer may lie in the identity of that “government official” that allegedly appeared in the photograph with Altantuya that both prosecution and defense tried so hard not to allow into court.
On Day 10 of the trial, Altantuya’s cousin Burmaa Oyunchimeg testified that after Altantuya returned from France, she went to Hong Kong to meet Burmaa, and showed her a photograph of Altantuya and her lover, Abdul Razak Baginda, who is accused of conspiring in her murder, and “a government official” taking a meal together. Answering Singh later, after the shouting match in the court had subsided, she said this “government official” was Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak.
She could distinctly remember the name, she said, because it bears a similarity to Altantuya’s acknowledged lover’s name, and she even asked Altantuya whether they were brothers. Burmaa further added that the photo had also been shown to Altantuya’s father.
Now, the revelation of Najib in the photo would not have caused such a sensation if not for the deputy prime minister’s oft-repeated denial of any knowledge of Altantuya, including a public denial during a recent by-election, when even the name of Allah was invoked.
What does Najib have to say now that his denial is directly contradicted by the witness Burmaa? His press secretary Tengku Sarifuddin Tengku Ahmad issued a brief statement on June 30 saying that the deputy prime minister had declined to comment for two reasons. One, any comment might be sub judice, since the case is in court, and, two, Najib had already repeatedly denied an acquaintance with the girl in the past, “as such, the issue over the picture does not arise,” the spokesman said.Sub judice? That’s ridiculous. How could a simple statement like “I have never had my photo taken with Altantuya” be sub judice? In fact, being the number-two leader in the government, Najib is absolutely duty-bound to say outright whether he was ever photographed with Altantuya, in view of the serious implications of Burmaa’s allegation.
The issue over the picture does not arise? Equally ridiculous. In fact, the opposite is true. Precisely because of Najib’s past denials, it is all the more imperative that Najib must stand up now to clarify.
That this murder case has been subjected to serious political manipulation has been obvious from the very start, when the police commenced their highly questionable investigation, right through to the present trial when the conduct of lawyers for both sides appear increasingly dubious. Instead of the prosecutor seeking the truth and the defense lawyer fighting for the accused, both seem preoccupied with an overriding mission – to prevent the whole truth from emerging. Their combined efforts to cover up the issue of the immigration record and the identity of Najib Razak in the picture are just two examples of such conduct.The highly irregular nature of this case was also marked by frequent and mysterious changes of legal personnel, resulting in a complete changeover of the defense team, the prosecutors and the judge even before the hearings began. These weird phenomena were crowned by the shock appearance of a new team of prosecutors who were appointed only hours before the hearing was supposed to begin, thus necessitating an impromptu postponement of the trial for two weeks. None of these changes of legal personnel has been properly explained, except for the resignation of Abdul Razak’s first lawyer; Zulkifli Noordin, quit, he said, because of “serious interference by third parties”.
Under these circumstances, the public must brace itself for more aberrant scenarios from this court, while Najib and his supporters may have to keep their fingers crossed in the days ahead when many more witnesses have yet to walk through what must appear to Najib as a minefield.
There has been a spate of criminal cases being dismissed of late due to inadequate investigations and poor prosecution, indicating that the downward slide of our criminal justice system, which began in the Mahathir era, has gotten worse under Abdullah Badawi’s leadership. With the criminal justice system in a shambles, the rule of law is in jeopardy. And that is an important benchmark to judge the efficacy of Abdullah’s administration vis-à-vis his reform agenda.
This resulted in a shouting match, with Singh on one side, the victim’s cousin on the stand, and the combined forces of the prosecution and defense blocking the line of questioning.
Earlier, a similar division of forces occurred when a Mongolian witness – a girlfriend of the victim told the court that immigration entry computer records of the deceased and her two Mongolian companions, including the witness, had been mysteriously erased. When Singh asked the court to take proper note of this highly irregular event, both the prosecution and defense objected to the evidence as irrelevant, and insisted that it be expunged.
Now, isn’t that a strange phenomenon? A prosecutor is supposed to seek justice for the deceased victim’s family against the murderers, so how come the prosecutor is now ganging up with defense lawyers to oppose the victim’s family lawyer? Is this a case of prosecutor vs. defense or a case of prosecutor plus defense vs. victim’s family? Obviously, the prosecution and defense seem to have plenty of common interests. What are those common interests?
The answer may lie in the identity of that “government official” that allegedly appeared in the photograph with Altantuya that both prosecution and defense tried so hard not to allow into court.
On Day 10 of the trial, Altantuya’s cousin Burmaa Oyunchimeg testified that after Altantuya returned from France, she went to Hong Kong to meet Burmaa, and showed her a photograph of Altantuya and her lover, Abdul Razak Baginda, who is accused of conspiring in her murder, and “a government official” taking a meal together. Answering Singh later, after the shouting match in the court had subsided, she said this “government official” was Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak.
She could distinctly remember the name, she said, because it bears a similarity to Altantuya’s acknowledged lover’s name, and she even asked Altantuya whether they were brothers. Burmaa further added that the photo had also been shown to Altantuya’s father.
Now, the revelation of Najib in the photo would not have caused such a sensation if not for the deputy prime minister’s oft-repeated denial of any knowledge of Altantuya, including a public denial during a recent by-election, when even the name of Allah was invoked.
What does Najib have to say now that his denial is directly contradicted by the witness Burmaa? His press secretary Tengku Sarifuddin Tengku Ahmad issued a brief statement on June 30 saying that the deputy prime minister had declined to comment for two reasons. One, any comment might be sub judice, since the case is in court, and, two, Najib had already repeatedly denied an acquaintance with the girl in the past, “as such, the issue over the picture does not arise,” the spokesman said.Sub judice? That’s ridiculous. How could a simple statement like “I have never had my photo taken with Altantuya” be sub judice? In fact, being the number-two leader in the government, Najib is absolutely duty-bound to say outright whether he was ever photographed with Altantuya, in view of the serious implications of Burmaa’s allegation.
The issue over the picture does not arise? Equally ridiculous. In fact, the opposite is true. Precisely because of Najib’s past denials, it is all the more imperative that Najib must stand up now to clarify.
That this murder case has been subjected to serious political manipulation has been obvious from the very start, when the police commenced their highly questionable investigation, right through to the present trial when the conduct of lawyers for both sides appear increasingly dubious. Instead of the prosecutor seeking the truth and the defense lawyer fighting for the accused, both seem preoccupied with an overriding mission – to prevent the whole truth from emerging. Their combined efforts to cover up the issue of the immigration record and the identity of Najib Razak in the picture are just two examples of such conduct.The highly irregular nature of this case was also marked by frequent and mysterious changes of legal personnel, resulting in a complete changeover of the defense team, the prosecutors and the judge even before the hearings began. These weird phenomena were crowned by the shock appearance of a new team of prosecutors who were appointed only hours before the hearing was supposed to begin, thus necessitating an impromptu postponement of the trial for two weeks. None of these changes of legal personnel has been properly explained, except for the resignation of Abdul Razak’s first lawyer; Zulkifli Noordin, quit, he said, because of “serious interference by third parties”.
Under these circumstances, the public must brace itself for more aberrant scenarios from this court, while Najib and his supporters may have to keep their fingers crossed in the days ahead when many more witnesses have yet to walk through what must appear to Najib as a minefield.
There has been a spate of criminal cases being dismissed of late due to inadequate investigations and poor prosecution, indicating that the downward slide of our criminal justice system, which began in the Mahathir era, has gotten worse under Abdullah Badawi’s leadership. With the criminal justice system in a shambles, the rule of law is in jeopardy. And that is an important benchmark to judge the efficacy of Abdullah’s administration vis-à-vis his reform agenda.
No comments:
Post a Comment