May I make reference to several reports on thestatements made by Dr Setev Shaaribuu who is here in Malaysia searching for justice for his murdered daughter, Altantuya.
Kindly allow me to offer my comments on the subject matter.
I reiterate my previous statements that were made public, that there has been a great deal of hanky panky, manipulation and concealment of material evidence, in the handling of the Altantuya murder trial, led by none other than Gani Patail the AG himself.
Gani Patail's refusal to put to test both P Balasubramaniam's statutory declarations (SDs) made on July 3 and 4, 2008 against his own evidence in court, and/or against Abdul Razak Baginda's very own affidavit affirmed in January 2007, and Razak's oral evidence during the trial, was clearly a deliberate act of concealment and/or suppression of material evidence from being produced before the judge in Altantuya's murder trial.
Furthermore, the presiding judge did not make any decision on anybody when Bala (right) made public his SDs.
Clearly Gani Patail's omissions required by propriety, was with the specific intention to facilitate Razak Baginda's acquittal and discharge from the abetment charge faced by Razak.
Under these circumstances, Gani Patail's refusal to file an appeal against Razak's acquittal should be viewed as an abuse of power and not within his discretionary boundary.
Gani Patail's intentional omissions can be turned into his commission of various inter-related criminal offences under the Penal Code.
Kindly allow me to offer my comments on the subject matter.
I reiterate my previous statements that were made public, that there has been a great deal of hanky panky, manipulation and concealment of material evidence, in the handling of the Altantuya murder trial, led by none other than Gani Patail the AG himself.
Gani Patail's refusal to put to test both P Balasubramaniam's statutory declarations (SDs) made on July 3 and 4, 2008 against his own evidence in court, and/or against Abdul Razak Baginda's very own affidavit affirmed in January 2007, and Razak's oral evidence during the trial, was clearly a deliberate act of concealment and/or suppression of material evidence from being produced before the judge in Altantuya's murder trial.
Furthermore, the presiding judge did not make any decision on anybody when Bala (right) made public his SDs.Clearly Gani Patail's omissions required by propriety, was with the specific intention to facilitate Razak Baginda's acquittal and discharge from the abetment charge faced by Razak.
Under these circumstances, Gani Patail's refusal to file an appeal against Razak's acquittal should be viewed as an abuse of power and not within his discretionary boundary.
Gani Patail's intentional omissions can be turned into his commission of various inter-related criminal offences under the Penal Code.
Unfavourable circumstances
Over and above that, Gani's actions and/or inactions have caused both the accused in the Altantuya murder, Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azhar, to be denied their right to a fair trial when they were put in unfavourable circumstances to state their defence after Razak was acquitted and discharged through the courtesy of the AG himself.
The world could see that both Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azhar were fighting a losing battle when Bala's SD was not challenged.
Only Gani Patail can pretend he did not know what was forthcoming.
The recent public statements made by Altantuya's father especially on the purpose why the late Altantuya travelled to Malaysia ,and the people she intended to meet, must be viewed not only seriously, but very seriously (my emphasis) by the police - certainly not by the AG.
The revelations by Shaaribuu must be considered as new leads that warrant the investigation into the murder case be revisited at least to establish the motive or motives behind Altantuya's murder.
Murder without motive is certainly not found in the police dictionary or in the Standing Orders that I know of.
The world could see that both Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azhar were fighting a losing battle when Bala's SD was not challenged.
Only Gani Patail can pretend he did not know what was forthcoming.
The recent public statements made by Altantuya's father especially on the purpose why the late Altantuya travelled to Malaysia ,and the people she intended to meet, must be viewed not only seriously, but very seriously (my emphasis) by the police - certainly not by the AG.
The revelations by Shaaribuu must be considered as new leads that warrant the investigation into the murder case be revisited at least to establish the motive or motives behind Altantuya's murder.
Murder without motive is certainly not found in the police dictionary or in the Standing Orders that I know of.
Right to fair trail
Apart from the above comments, I still maintain and emphasise my call that Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azhar deserve to be retried before another judge to ensure that they be given their rights to a fair trial which they have been clearly deprived of by Gani Patail.
If the AG can swiftly act to entertain the request made by Saiful Bukhari Azlan's father for Saiful to be given justice, whatever the word means to them, then there is no reason at all not to entertain the wishes by many for the police to reopen the investigation.
At least accord Azilah Hadri (left) and Sirul Azhar the same privileges the police have given to others. An example is the Batang Kali massacre case which was reopened in 1993 after 45 years.
For your benefit, I have written a personal appeal to the Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak vide my letter dated July 12, 2011 and copied to the IGP personally, providing the PM with details, arguments as well as case precedents, to support my insistence that both Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azhar deserved to be given a retrial.
That appeal letter of mine is exactly nine months old. It was written well before the Copgate issue surfaced or Sharizat's Cowgate or Tajuddin Ramli's out of court settlement issues and certainly nothing to do with its written judgement which was delivered only last month, nor was it to coincide with Shariibuu's visit.
If PM Najib cares for the welfare of Saiful Bukhari,Razak Baginda,Sharizat and Tajuddin only and does not have any space left for his own security details then at least Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azhar can be rest assured that there are still some old and haggard policemen out here who care.
If the AG can swiftly act to entertain the request made by Saiful Bukhari Azlan's father for Saiful to be given justice, whatever the word means to them, then there is no reason at all not to entertain the wishes by many for the police to reopen the investigation.
At least accord Azilah Hadri (left) and Sirul Azhar the same privileges the police have given to others. An example is the Batang Kali massacre case which was reopened in 1993 after 45 years.For your benefit, I have written a personal appeal to the Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak vide my letter dated July 12, 2011 and copied to the IGP personally, providing the PM with details, arguments as well as case precedents, to support my insistence that both Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azhar deserved to be given a retrial.
That appeal letter of mine is exactly nine months old. It was written well before the Copgate issue surfaced or Sharizat's Cowgate or Tajuddin Ramli's out of court settlement issues and certainly nothing to do with its written judgement which was delivered only last month, nor was it to coincide with Shariibuu's visit.
If PM Najib cares for the welfare of Saiful Bukhari,Razak Baginda,Sharizat and Tajuddin only and does not have any space left for his own security details then at least Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azhar can be rest assured that there are still some old and haggard policemen out here who care.
MAT ZAIN IBRAHIM is former Kuala Lumpur CID (Criminal Investigation Department) chief.
1 comment:
Dr.Jeffry Kitingan is a Christian Kadazan from Sabah. But is he in favor of Bersih 3.0 or not? He is either pro-Bersih 3.0 or anti-Bersih 3.0. If you are pro-Bersih 3.0, then you are not anti-Bersih 3.0. If you are anti-Bersih 3.0, then you are not pro-Bersih 3.0. I do have a lot of respect for Dr.Jeffry Kitingan, but on this important moment in history, he and other Sabahans and Sarawakians must make a clear unambiguous public stand. I think the Malaysian citizens need to know.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The UMNO government agreed to set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) on the large presence of illegal foreigners in Sabah and the widespread issuance of Malaysian Mykads and identification documents. But UMNO has yet to do something concrete. UMNO has to do something concrete before the General Elections(GE13). Starting the RCI work after the GE13 is a joke.
The Hindu Malaysians have the same problem. There is a UMNO minister who asked the Hindu Malaysians to have "nambikei" in UMNO. The word "nambikei" means "faith" in Tamil language. The reality is that due cronyism and favoritism, most Hindu Malaysians were sidelined. Now an UMNO Minister is asking Hindu Malaysians to put faith in him. It means that if the Hindu Malaysians vote for UMNO in GE13, then UMNO will respond by helping to uplift the Hindu Malaysians out of poverty. But faith can be given to the Almighty, not human beings because human beings do err all the time. It is dangerous to put faith in human beings because they may betray you too. What Hindu Malaysians need is equal rights and meritocracy.
At some point in time Sabahans must draw the line somewhere. Waiting for GE13 to be over before the RCI can do what they should do may not be a good idea. Any way, its up to Sabahans to decide. Should the RCI do its work before GE13 or after GE13 is the burning question. If the Sabahans continue to tolerate and have faith in UMNO, then it is their own problem. It is for Sabahans to wise up. It is for Sabahans to realize that they have been shortchanged. It is for Sabahans to decide their own future. Sabahans cannot and should not wait and wait for the RCI to do its work. I say that the RCI should do its work before GE13; and this should be the ultimatum.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The political history of Malaysia can be divided into two chapters: that is, chapter one and chapter two. Chapter One is about UMNO rule with a 2/3 majority in Parliament. Chapter Two is about UMNO rule without a 2/3 majority in Parliament. We are now in Chapter Two. The beginning of Chapter Two is the end of Chapter One. Similarly, the end of Chapter One is the beginning of Chapter Two.
Chapter One had its social, political, and economic implications for the nation. Chapter Two has just begun and its social, political, and economic changes are something we have to wait and see.
Post a Comment