Americk yang menyediakan akuan bersumpah yang pertama (SD1) untuk penyiasat persendirian P Balasubramaniam yang diupah Razak pada 2006 berkata, Razak terus-terusan mengatakan dalam satu wawancara dengan The Malaysian Insider baru-baru ini yang Najib tidak bersalah dan diperlakukan dengan tidak adil.
Dalam temu bual yang disiarkan pada Khamis, Razak memberitahu The Malaysian Insider semuanya ialah mainan politik dan tiada kaitan antara Najib dan kematian Altantuya.
Americk berkata, Razak bagaimanapun tidak menerangkan kenapa beliau merasakan Najib perlu dilindungi.
"Tiada siapa yang tuduh Najib terlibat. Bala dalam SD1 beliau tidak mengatakan Najib mempunyai apa-apa kaitan dengan pembunuhan Altantuya," kata Americk dalam satu kenyataan eksklusif kepada The Malaysian Insider.
Mendiang Bala, seorang bekas anggota polis, berkata dalam SD pertama beliau yang Razak mengambilnya bekerja pada Jun 2006 untuk menghalang Altantuya daripada mendekatinya.
Americk berkata apa yang dinyatakan Bala dalam SD itu ialah Razak memberitahunya mengenai penglibatan Najib dengan Altantuya.
(Bala berkata kedua-dua Razak dan Altantuya memberitahunya, Altantuya pernah menjadi teman wanita Najib. Dakwaan ini terdapat pada perenggan 25 dan 28 dalam SD1.)
Americk berkata Razak masih belum secara khusus menafikan beliau memberitahu Bala perkara ini.
"Bala mengakui sedari awal yang beberapa perkara dalam SD1 beliau merupakan khabar angin. Jadi, apa tujuannya apabila Razak mengatakan SD Bala itu khabar angin?" soal Americk.
Katanya, Razak juga mengelak daripada mengatakan mengapa Najib, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, Nazim Razak, peniaga karpet Deepak Jaikishin dan ramai individu lain merasakan Bala dan keluarganya perlu meninggalkan negara ini sebaik SD1 itu dikeluarkan.
"Ini tidak benar-benar memberi sebarang kredibiliti kepada penegasan Razak yang Najib ialah mangsa yang tidak bersalah dalam satu kes tipu helah politik," kata Americk.
Bala merupakan saksi dalam perbicaraan kes pembunuhan Altantuya, tetapi meninggalkan Malaysia dalam tergesa-gesa selepas menandatangani akuan bersumpah kedua (SD) pada 2008, yang kononnya membersihkan Najib daripada terlibat dalam kes itu.
Beliau meninggal dunia akibat serangan jantung pada 15 Mac, 2013, beberapa minggu selepas pulang ke negara ini setelah 5 tahun memaksa diri menjadi orang buangan di India.
Americk juga berkata Razak gagal menghargai kesetiaan Bala kepadanya.
Beliau berkata, apabila Bala ditemuramah akhbar di London pada Julai 2010 di Holiday Villas, Bayswater, dia memberitahu pemberita dia merasakan Razak tiada kaitan dengan pembunuhan itu dan dia tidak bersalah.
Americk berkata Bala merasakan Razak naif dalam menyangkakan 2 komando polis itu tidak akan membahayakan Altantuya.
"Adakah semua ini mengarut Encik Razak Baginda?" soal Americk, merujuk kepada wawancara Razak dengan The Malaysian Insider apabila beliau mengatakan SD Bala mengarut.
Americk juga menyebut tentang satu makan malam di sebuah restoran di Brickfields pada 13 Oktober 2006, yang diatur Bala supaya Razak boleh berjumpa seorang yang bernama ASP Suresh yang sepatutnya menguruskan penangkapan Altantuya.
Tetapi Suresh tidak hadir kerana beliau sendiri ditangkap Badan Pencegah Rasuah (namanya ketika itu) pada malam itu juga.
Ketika makan malam itu, Razak secara khusus memberitahu Bala dia mesti pastikan Altantuya tidak disakiti walau apa cara sekali pun, kata Americk.
Razak ketika wawancara itu tidak membesarkan kes jenayah itu, mengatakan dia tidak tahu motif pembunuhan kekasihnya Altantuya, tetapi menyatakan ramai yang mati dalam tahanan polis tanpa sebarang penjelasan.
Beliau dibebaskan daripada bersubahat dalam pembunuhan tahun 2006 itu tetapi dua bekas komando polis, Azilah dan Koperal Sirul Azhar Umar, didapati bersalah oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan selepas rayuan pusingan terakhir bulan ini.
"Hanya 2 anggota polis itu sahaja yang tahu. Polis yang penyangak memang bunuh orang, seperti dalam kebanyakan kes reman," penganalisis politik itu memberitahu The Malaysian Insider ketika ditanya pendapatnya mengenai motif pembunuhan itu.
Azilah sedang berhadapan hukuman mati manakala Sirul melarikan diri ke Australia. Pihak berkuasa Malaysia sedang memohon agar dia diekstradisikan.
Keterangan dalam mahkamah mendedahkan wanita Mongolia itu dibunuh sama ada dengan bahan letupan C4 atau dibunuh terlebih dahulu dan mayatnya dihapuskan pada 18 Oktober 2006, di pinggir bandar Shah Alam, berhampiran ibu kota Kuala Lumpur.
Semasa perbicaraan, Razak yang juga rapat dengan Datuk Seri Najib Razak, mendapatkan pertolongan Musa kerana tidak tahan dengan gangguan daripada Altantuya.
Musa pada masa itu merupakan pembantu peribadi Najib, yang ketika itu timbalan perdana menteri.
Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan kegagalan memanggil Musa adalah punca kekalahan kes pendakwaan itu. – tmi
Why is Razak Baginda protecting Najib over Altantuya’s murder...
Americk had prepared the first statutory declaration (SD 1) for the late private detective P. Balasubramaniam who was engaged by the political analyst in 2006.
The lawyer said Razak kept harping during his recent interview with The Malaysian Insider that Najib was an innocent victim and had been dealt with unfairly.
In the interview posted on the portal on Thursday, Razak had told The Malaysian Insider that it was all a political stunt and that there was no connection between Najib and Altantuya’s death.
Americk said Razak, however, did not explain why he found it necessary to protect Najib.
“No one has accused Najib of being involved. Bala in his SD 1 certainly didn’t accuse Najib of having anything to do with the murder of Altantuya," Americk said in a statement exclusive to The Malaysian Insider.
Bala, who was a freelance private investigator after leaving the police force, had said in his first SD that Razak had employed him some time in June 2006 to keep Altantuya away from him.
Americk said all Bala had stated in that SD was that Razak had told him about Najib’s involvement with Altantuya.
(Bala had said that both Razak and Altantuya had told him that she used to be Najib's girlfriend. This allegation appears in paragraphs 25 and 28 of the SD 1).
Americk said Razak had yet to specifically deny he told Bala this.
“Bala has admitted right from the beginning that some of the contents of his SD 1 were hearsay. So what is Razak Baginda’s point when he says Bala’s SD is hearsay?" Americk asked.
He said Razak had also conveniently avoided saying why Najib, Najib's wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, Najib's brother Nazim Razak, carpet trader Deepak Jaikishin and a host of other personalities found it necessary to ensure Bala and his family left the country soon after the SD 1 was released.
"This doesn’t really lend any credibility to Razak's assertion that Najib is an innocent victim of political subterfuge," Americk said.
Bala was a witness in the murder trial of Altantuya but left Malaysia in a hurry after he signed a second statutory declaration (SD) in 2008, which purportedly cleared Najib of involvement in the case.
Bala died of a heart attack on March 15, 2013, weeks after returning from a five-year forced exile in India.
Americk also said Razak failed to appreciate Bala’s loyalty to him.
He said when Bala was interviewed by the press in London in July 2010 at the Holiday Villa Hotel, in Bayswater, he told the reporters that he thought Razak had nothing to do with the murder and that he was innocent.
Americk said Bala felt Razak was naive in thinking the two police commandos, Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, would not harm Altantuya.
"Is this all rubbish Mr Razak Baginda?" asked Americk, refering to Razak's interview with The Malaysian Insider where he had rubbished Bala's SD.
Americk also mentioned a dinner at a restaurant in Brickfields on October 13, 2006, arranged by Bala so that Razak could meet one ASP Suresh who was to organise the arrest of Altantuya. But Suresh did not turn up because he himself had been arrested by the Anti-Corruption Agency (as it was then known), that same evening.
At that dinner, Razak had specifically told Bala that he was to make sure Altantuya was not harmed in any way, added Americk.
"But Razak did not realise what he was getting into when he became involved with (Deputy Superintendent) Musa Safri and Azilah. Is this all rubbish?" he asked again.
Musa was at the time the aide-de-camp for Najib, who was then the deputy prime minister.
Razak, in the interview with The Malaysian Insider, had played down the crime, saying he did not know the motive for his lover Altantuya's murder but noted that many people have inexplicably died in police custody.
He was acquitted of abetting in her 2006 murder but the two former police commandos, Azilah and Sirul, were found guilty by the Federal Court after a final round of appeal this month.
"Only the two policemen know. Rogue police do kill people, like in so many remand cases," the political analyst had told The Malaysian Insider when asked what, in his opinion, was the motive for the murder.
Azilah is on death row while Sirul has fled to Australia and Malaysian authorities are making attempts to have him extradited.
Evidence in court revealed that the Mongolian woman was either murdered by C4 explosives or was killed first and her remains destroyed on October 18, 2006, in the outskirts of Shah Alam, near capital city Kuala Lumpur.
It emerged during the trial that Razak, a confidante of Najib, had enlisted Musa's help as he could not tolerate the harassment from Altantuya.
The Federal Court in its judgment ruled that the non-calling of Musa was not fatal to the prosecution's case and could not see how much more details the senior police officer could have provided for the defence of Azilah and Sirul.
Tan Sri Suriyadi Halim Omar, who delivered the the 88-page judgment, had said that while the defence lawyers complained that Musa's testimony, if he had been called upon by the prosecution, could have provided details regarding Razak's sworn affidavit, the court was satisfied that the content (of the affidavit) was merely confirmatory in nature.
“It is only useful to Razak. It merely confirmed evidence adduced from Altantuya'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' defence. The calling of DSP Musa, 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,” Suriyadi had said in the unanimous verdict. – tmi
Razak Baginda -Why are U so ‘kurang ajar'...
His sudden re-appearance thorough a media interview has now added to the embarrassment, pain and curiosity of the Malaysian public.
Going by netizens’ overwhelming comments and statements, certainly Razak Baginda is being considered to be not only recklessly hurtful but arrogant too despite having this murder-millstone on his neck.
For one, he now smears the police image by labelling the two convicted murderers as “rogue police”. Surely our IGP must take issue with this snide by Razak Baginda or else he is not doing justice to all the men and women in blue.
If carefully and stringently selected and highly trained commandos can turn as “rogue” cops, is it not an insult to the credibility and capability of all those superiors in the ranks who have executed their duties with utmost care?
If such carefully deployed personal bodyguards of VVIPs can be reduced to being “rogue police”, how can the public then trust the entire police force of ordinary cops?
Secondly, Razak Baginda accuses Malaysians of a “herd mentality”, alluding to the conspiracies bobbling up and swirling around this grisly mother of all murders. To rub salt into the wound Razak Baginda concludes that this was merely a “straightforward murder”.
Now that puts even the judiciary in a bad light does it not? People are asking Razak Baginda why did the courts take almost nine years to plug this “straight forward murder” case? The courts must be darn dumb then.
Thirdly, Razak Baginda wished that the public would focus on him “rather than Najib” our Prime Minister. And he claimed, “You know it is my story”.
Of course it is your story. Nobody said it is Najib’s story. If not for you and your cheating, filthy affair with this Mongolian girl, Malaysia would be spared this ugly embarrassing episode that has exposed and made the police, the judiciary, the government and all Malaysians so vulnerable in the eyes of the world.
It is because of that relationship and the service you provided our then PM-to-Be that inevitably led the Malaysian public to ask if there was any connection between you, the girl and the PM-to-be.And that too, after hearing all that transpired during the entire court proceedings.
You demand for “evidence” from the “conspiring” Malaysians. And you accuse us of having a “herd mentality”. But can you give this “herd mentality” (or plainly put ‘kerbau’) Malaysian public, any evidence on why we should believe you now?
Why are you so ‘kurang ajar’ – that seems to be the underlying question.
Fourthly,you have made Malaysians into seeming fools by alluding to “dracula, vampire(and) werewolf”. You now have painted an even more gruesome picture of yourself and for which Malaysians will now start asking even louder,“How come the courts set you a free man”.
Razak Baginda, actus non facit reum nisi menssit rea (an act does not make a person guilty unless their mind is also guilty). If netizens are now pouring out their reactions to your statements, it is because you have now allowed them to see into your mind. That is conspiracy?
Please Razak Baginda, stop blaming Malaysians. Stop imagining conspiracies. It all began with your sordid love affair with another woman while you still had a legitimate wife and daughter, right?
It became worse when you tried to wriggle out of the subsequent blackmail, right? And the “blackmail” was on you and not the nation or on the PM-to-be, right? So stop lambasting and insulting Malaysians and selling us stories, please. - J. D. Lovrenciear,fmt
Do you believe Razak Baginda...
For some of us, it is believable but for many, there are still many questions that either have not been satisfactorily answered or not answered at all.
Datuk Zaid Ibrahim has detailed out the relevant questions and related matters that need convincing answers by those involved in the investigation and prosecution of the case.
Thus, the investigation was not done thoroughly and the trial was not fully transparent. The only conclusion is that there are some important and damaging things that have to be hid and prevented from coming out in the trial.
a.The missing record of Altantuya’s entry into the country,
b.those involved in the issuance of the C4 explosives,
c.the presence of DSP Musa Safri,
d.the involvement of Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s personal bodyguards,
e.the P.I Bala’s statutory declarations and his stay in India and the trouble faced by his family
f.the refusal of the authorities to find the motive and who was the real mastermind are some more things that need to be clarified.
There are many other things, of course.
If there was no mastermind, then the authorities should have used the trial as the opportunity to confirm without any doubt that Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar and Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri committed the murder on their own.
The prosecution team should have asked the duo whether they acted alone or there was someone giving the order. Let the duo tell their story during the trail.
That would clear all other suspects and end all the conspiracy theories and close the case for good.
There should be a trial within a trial if need be, just to seek justice both for the accused and those purportedly involved as their names were mentioned – clear their names!
When Sirul admitted that he was offered RM100,000 to kill Altantuya, the court should have pursued the matter to prove that either it was true or Sirul was lying. If Sirul lied, then that would clear the air in the most transparent and irrefutable lawful way.
When the court refused to pursue these aspects of the murder and finding the real motive, the whole trial is incomplete.
The court had not done its job properly and the authorities have lost the opportunity to clear the air. The trial should be more thorough.
The police should have questioned Musa and called him as witness or to prove that he was not involved in the murder and was not the one who gave the order to kill.
Leaving Musa out of the case when it was mentioned that he was spotted in a car created more intrigue rather than clear the air.
If this murder was “just a straightforward murder cas”, then why leave so many loose ends and questions not asked and duly answered?
As the saying goes, "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done". It is more so in this case because the prime minister’s name was also implicated. The court, too, has not done justice to itself! – tmi