Death sentence delivered to Azilah & Sirul could have been based on “false evidences” admitted by Razak Baginda...

Former Kuala Lumpur Criminal Investigation Department (CID) chief Mat Zain Ibrahim has urged police to reopen investigations into the murder of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu, until they leave no stone unturned.

“The police are empowered to conduct separate investigations on each of them without having to wait for any other instructions or to pass the buck to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission,” he said.

Mat Zain insists that there had been a “great deal of hanky-panky, concealment of material evidence and manipulation” whereby political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda ( left), who was charged for abetment, was acquitted without having to enter his defence.

“The police have all the powers and in this case, the justifications as well, to re-look at the whole investigations to be sure that they have not left any stone unturned.

“No one has the power to obstruct police doing their jobs. Not even (attorney-general) Abdul Gani Patail. Any police officer can arrest, without (a) warrant, any person who obstructs them.

“The AG may have the powers to institute, conduct or discontinue any criminal proceeding but he is not empowered to fabricate, manipulate, conceal or destroy evidence whenever he likes.

“Make it clear also that the IGP (inspector general of police) is not subservient to the AG and that the police can function independently without having to tailor their investigations to the whims and fancies of the AG,” said Mat Zain in strongly-worded statement today.

He added that the conviction and the death sentence delivered to chief inspector Azilah Hadri (left) and corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, could have been based on “false evidences” admitted by Abdul Razak and private investigator P Balasubramaniam.
 
In his 70-page judgment obtained by Malaysiakini, Shah Alam High Court judge Mohd Zaki Md Yasin included major portions of Abdul Razak’s affidavit, however, Mat Zain opined that the authenticity the affidavit cannot be verified unless it is tested against Balasubramaniam’s testimony.

Private investigator’s allegations

Zaki had stated that after studying Abdul Razak’s affidavit, the evidence corroborated by Balasubramaniam, Altantuya’s cousin Burmaa Oyuchimeg, lance corporal Rohaniza Roslan - girlfriend of the accused Azilah - and Abdul Razak’s secretary Siti Aishah Mohd Azlan have clearly negated and nullified the act of abetment as alleged against Abdul Razak.


Just months before Abdul Razak’s acquittal, Balasubramaniam (right) on July 3, 2008, revealed his first statutory declaration (SD) which included shocking allegations linking then deputy prime minister Najib Abdul Razak to Altantuya.

Abdul Razak was known to be a close ally and confidante of Najib and reportedly advised the defence ministry when the latter was defence minister.

Less than 24 hours later, the private-eye revealed a second SD, retracting all his allegations against Najib in a hastily organised press conference, after which he fled the country.

However, he continued to insist that he had been pressured into making the second statutory declaration and that his first was true.

“Bala’s own admission that (the first) of his affidavits is false is sufficient to at least test his affidavit against his oral evidence under oath that he gave during the trial. This was purposely avoided by the AG,” said Mat Zain. 

Past precedents

Balasubramaniam had later challenged the government to charge him for the false SD, however, the AG decided that the two conflicting SDs would have had “no effect” on Altantuya’s murder trial.

“If that position taken by AG is not ridiculous or insane, then what is?

“The mere fact that the AG ignored Bala’s false affidavit is as good as concealing material evidence from being tendered in court, which if tendered could be favourable to Azilah and Sirul but may not be favourable to Abdul Razak,” said Mat Zain.

However, he reiterated that the IGP should reinitiate investigations despite the AG’s stand on the matter as there are past precedents where the murders during the Batang Kali massacre in 1948 was re-opened 45 years later in 1993 based of “vague and sketchy information” from the murder victims’ relative.

If an ordinary citizen could be accorded with such treatment, Mat Zain said, the same privilege should be given to the police officers Azilah and Sirul.

“Nobody is asking for the two to be released. If both are really guilty, go ahead hang them including those who abetted them but they must be given a fair hearing,” he added, stressing that it was not the AG’s prerogative to decide who should go to the gallows and who should go scot free”. -malaysiakini

Altantuya murder: There was a "motive", but it can't be revealed or Putrajaya will crumble...

The long awaited but only just concluded verdict by Shah Alam High Court Judge, Mohd Zaki Md Yasin on the Mongolian Altantuya case is not only causing a spasmodic arrest within the legal circuit in Malaysia but is also the very talk of the simpletons – Ahmad, Muthu and Ah Beng nationwide.

Legal students and practicing professionals are shocked at the Judge’s conclusion. Teaching lawyers will have nightmares in trying to make sense of the verdict that has completely negated “motive” from murders.

The learned Judge is reported to have said that “motive, although relevant, has never been the essential to constitute murder.”

Now even High School students are asking if motive is not essential then what is, in so far as a murder goes? Just the act of killing? Or just the person who carried out the actual killing?

Malaysia's legal standards under the spotlight

The Judge’s verdict also places Malaysia’s legal standards on the global legal table of scrutiny. It has far reaching ramification not only from the socio-political perspective of human rights but also from socio-economic as well as judicial dimensions.

Indeed we have with this concluding verdict demonstrated to the world in no uncertain terms that the way we interpret the law around here need not conform to what universally acceptable law books teach and how justice is dispensed in the democratic worldover.

In our own backyard, this verdict also delves a lethal blow to the government of the day. Voters will all the more connect one plus one and make three. The BN party will be the one that must now carry this yoke of suspicion transpiring from the conclusion of the judge.

Why would 2 special squad cops want to do such a thing without 'motivation'

Citizens are asking a simple yet profound and logical question: How could two trained, disciplined and uniformed members of the elite forces who are known and reputed to carry out their duties to the last letter of command have killed (murdered) a helpless, unarmed, defenseless and solitary woman?

People are asking, even the very murder was planned to completely annihilate all traces of evidence by blowing a fragile female lass with deadly military grade C4 explosives and yet “motive’ is not “essential”?

The Judge stated that ‘motive (is) relevant’. But he went on to disqualify the crucial importance of motive in this case.

And so the citizens are now asking why. Why is motive not essential in this grisly, brutal and heinous crime against humanity when all indicators bleep that motive was the cause of the murder? They are reasoning at kopitiam outlets in the big cities and the humble warongs in villages that how could two salaried, uniformed and specially tasked armed personnel carry out this murder of helpless lady with whom they had no relationship with nor knowledge of?

But there was a "motive"

People are saying that there was a motive for the act of killing to take place. And they want the law to establish that motive so that the person or persons who are party to the crime will be dealt with by the law adequately and with fair justice.

But alas, “motive” has just flown out of the window of Malaysia’s judiciary. The precedent has been set. The rakyat are drawing down their blinds. There is now a foregone conclusion in the minds and hearts of the citizens here – a verdict that will be almost insurmountable in the resurrection of Malaysia’s justice system and its reputation.

Some citizens are even going the distance to say that if this transpired in another civil and democratic nation, by now the entire legal fraternity would have downed their tools of trade and demanded right-thinking action. Will this happen in Malaysia? Only time can tell. But in the meantime the credibility of leaders and political parties and government systems have been dealt a lethal blow by this verdict on the Altantuya case.- J. D. Lovrenciear,Malaysia Chronicle

Najib terus dihantui Altantuya...

Tidak diragui lagi bahawa wawancara Raja Petra Kamarudin oleh TV3 13 April lalu merupakan satu propaganda politik bertujuan membersihkan nama Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Razak yang dikaitkan dengan kes pembunuhan model Mongolia, Altantuya Shaariibuu menjelang Pilihan Raya Sarawak.

Wawancara Raja Petra bertumpu kepada afidavit yang ditandatanganinya pada 18 Jun 2008, di mana beliau mendakwa bahawa beliau dimaklumkan dengan pasti oleh informanya bahawa isteri Najib, Rosmah Mansor berada di tempat kejadian, menyaksikan peletupan mayat Altantuya.

Raja Petra kini mendakwa bahawa beliau tidak lagi mempercayai apa yang beliau yakini sebelum ini. Mari kita fahami isu ini dengan jelas dari permulaannya.
 
Kebenaran afidavit ataupun sebaliknya serta apa pun kepercayaan ataupun rasa tidak percaya yang mungkin dirasai oleh Raja Petra terhadap kes Altantuya tidak akan menambah atau mengurangkan walaupun sedikit awan gelap yang terus menghantui Najib ke atas kes pembunuhan ini.

Kegagalan agensi penguatkuasa Sebarang persepsi negatif mengenai Najib tidak timbul dari si anu mengatakan ini atau itu.

Sebaliknya, ia bertimbun dek kegagalan Najib sendiri untuk memimpin seperti yang sepatutnya serta perisai yang melindunginya secara keterlaluan oleh agensi penguatkuasa undang-undang untuk menghindari Najib agar tidak terkeluar dari batasan mengikut proses undang- undang – sehingga ia melalaikan tugas, menampakkannya seperti satu pakatan sulit.

Kegagalan agensi penguatkuasa secara terang-terangan serta tingkah laku Najib yang kekok dalam mengelak inilah yang telah membuatkan syak wasangka rakyat jelata lebih membuak-buak terhadap penglibatannya.

Segala contoh yang ada amat banyak untuk dihitung satu persatu, tapi kami akan menyebut beberapa untuk mengingatkan semula kepada rakyat jelata.

Bermula dengan polis, tiada sebarang alasan mengapa polis harus membiarkan Najib dan penolong pegawainya Musa Safri terlepas dari disoal siat dalam penyiasatan mereka, apabila ketiga-tiga tertuduh mempunyai hubungan rapat dengan Najib.

Musa jugalah yang telah mengarahkan kedua-dua tertuduh pertama untuk `menguruskan’ Altantuya. Bahkan kegagalan polis lebih ketara apabila ia gagal bertindak ke atas tiga afidavit dan wawancara video penyiasat persendirian P Balasubramaniam oleh tiga peguam kanan.

Maklumat yang diberikan oleh Bala dalam dokumen-dokumen tersebut bukan hanya membabitkan Najib (dalam afidavit pertama), tetapi turut menuduh Rosmah dan abang Najib, iaitu Nazim yang memaksa Bala dan keluarganya untuk melarikan diri dari negara dengan rasuah dan ugutan (direkodkan dalam wawancara video dan diserahkan melalui afidavit ketiga).

Afidavit ketiga adalah jawapan kepada soalan-soalan bertulis oleh Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) dan diserahkan pada bulan Julai 2010.

Belum ada sebarang jawapan dari SPRM, meskipun terdapat peringatan bertulis dari peguam Bala. Apakah alasan munasabah untuk polis dan SPRM untuk terus berdiam diri selama ini bagi tuduhan-tuduhan serius ini, yang disokong oleh butiran faktual, terhadap Perdana Menteri dan keluarganya?

Jika Najib dan keluarganya tidak bersalah, tidakkah badan penguatkuasa undang-undang ini telah bertindak dari awal-awalnya lagi untuk membersihkan nama PM dan keluarganya dari stigma mengerikan seperti itu?

Perkara di luar aturan yang aneh Senario di mahkamah adalah lebih aneh. Bukti ketara dan kritikal yang didedahkan di mahkamah telah ‘ditutup’ dengan cepat, bukannya diteruskan dalam mengejar kebenaran dan keadilan.

Bahagian luar biasanya adalah segala usaha untuk menguburkan bukti-bukti baru ini tidak ditimbulkan oleh satu atau dua pihak tetapi oleh ketiga-tiga pihak yang bertindak secara bersama – pihak pendakwa, peguam bela dan hakim.

Bukti-bukti ini termasuklah pemadaman rekod imigresen Altantuya dan teman-temannya dari Mongolia, dan sekeping foto yang dikatakan gambar Najib, Altantuya dan tertuduh ketiga sedang menjamu selera di sebuah restoran.

Bukti yang pertama akan memberikan petunjuk yang penting kepada penglibatan pihak atasan dalam kes tersebut, manakala bukti yang kedua akan mengaitkan Najib (jika terbukti) yang telah berkali-kali bersumpah bahawa dia tidak pernah kenal atau bertemu Altantuya.

Fenomena aneh bagi pertembungan kepentingan oleh pihak kehakiman untuk menyekat bukti baru hanya boleh dijelaskan dengan satu perkara – Najib tidak harus dibabitkan dalam kes tersebut.

Kenyataan bahawa keadilan tidak dilaksanakan sepenuhnya melalui hukuman mati ke atas kedua-dua tertuduh yang pertama sememangnya jelas, apabila mahkamah tidak pernah peduli untuk menyiasat motif pembunuhan gadis tersebut – dan dengan cara yang amat kejam seperti itu.

Adalah tidak sukar untuk memahami mengapa motif pembunuhan tidak pernah disebut di dalam mahkamah. Jawapannya mudah, tidak ada.

Kedua-dua pembunuh yang disabitkan dengan kesalahan itu, yang merupakan pengawal peribadi kepada Najib, dan dilatih untuk bersiap sedia menjalankan perintah tanpa sebarang soalan, tidak mempunyai sebarang motif tersendiri untuk membunuh seseorang yang belum pernah mereka ketemu sebelum ini.

Dan semenjak tertuduh ketiga, yang dituduh mengarahkan pembunuhan, dibebaskan kerana kekurangan bukti, maka pertanyaan yang bermain di fikiran adalah: siapa yang mengarahkan pembunuhan itu?

Bolehkah dibayangkan bahawa pengawal peribadi telah membunuh tanpa sebarang arahan dan tanpa motif?

Bukankah lebih logik untuk membuat kesimpulan bahawa dalang dan pelaku sebenarnya masih berkeliaran di luar sana dan berada di luar bidang kuasa mahkamah?

Adalah jelas bahawa soalan-soalan utama dan keraguan yang masih berlegar-legar di fikiran mengenai pengendalian kes ini masih belum terjawab.

Sehingga jawapan memuaskan diberikan melalui mahkamah yang adil dan pasukan polis yang dihormati, yang hanya dapat diwujudkan melalui perubahan lengkap dalam kepimpinan politik, adalah naif untuk berharap agar keadilan dapat dikembalikan kepada keluarga Altantuya dan rakyat.

Dan sehingga ia berlaku, Perdana Menteri tidak boleh berharap untuk bebas daripada dihantui oleh pembunuhan Altantuya. - Kim Quek, keadilandaily.

cheers.