Part 11: The MACC sends PI Bala a list of questions and then goes very quiet

The MACC was supposed to meet private investigator Balasubramaniam Perumal in the Holiday Villa in London to record his statement. At the eleventh hour, the MACC decided to call the whole thing off and instead sent Bala a list of questions for him to reply to, which they stamped RAHSIA, meaning classified. That was three months ago and since then neither Bala nor his lawyers have heard from the MACC, which raises the suspicion that this is going to be another closed file marked NFA. While the questions have been marked RAHSIA, the answers have not, so Malaysia Today would like to share with our readers what Bala replied to the MACC in his Affidavit.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

AFFIDAVIT

I, Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal, (NRIC NO: 600928-08-6235) a Malaysian citizen of full age and of No. 32, Jalan Pelangi 1, Taman Pelangi, Rawang, 48000, Selangor, Malaysia, do solemnly and sincerely affirm and state as follows:

1. I am a private investigator by profession. I was born in Malaysia on the 28.09.1960 and am married to A.Santamil Selvi Alau Malay. I have 3 children, Kishen, born on the 07.02.1997, Menaga, born on the 22.08.1998 and Reeshi, born on the 04.02.2002. I can be contacted through my lawyer Mr. Americk Sidhu.

2. On the 05.07.2010, my lawyer received couriered documents from the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC), which were sent to his hotel in London, setting out a series of questions they wished me to answer in relation to their investigations into an offence connected to report No: IPA 0350/2009.

3. These questions are now answered in the order they have been set out in the request from the MACC dated the 1st July 2010 which is annexed hereto marked as Exhibit ‘PIB-1’.

Question 2 : 1st Statutory Declaration (SD) dated 1st July 2008

2.1 Answer

The 1st SD is about the relationships between Abdul Razak Baginda, Najib Tun Razak and Altantuya Sharibuu and the circumstances in which I found myself involved in a series of events prior to the murder of Altantuya.

The circumstances which led me to make this 1st SD can be summarized by saying that I felt it was my moral duty as a law abiding citizen, to bring to the attention of the authorities the cover ups I felt were being orchestrated by the police investigation team in cohorts with the Attorney Generals Chambers in this case which appeared to me to have been designed to protect the real perpetrators and organizers behind this murder.

I was present at the front gates of Razak Baginda’s residence in Damansara Heights, Kuala Lumpur in the evening of the 19.10.2006 when Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri, Corporal Sirul Azahar and Lance Corporal Rohaniza drove up in a red Proton Aeroback and took Altantuya away. I believe these 2 gentlemen were the bodyguards of Najib Razak.

I also noticed around the same time that another blue proton car, driven by a Malay man, passed by very slowly. This driver appeared to be studying the scene outside Razak Baginda’s house very carefully.

I have since identified this Malay man as one Nasir Safar, another close confidant of Najib Razak and his personal assistant.

I was again on duty outside Razak Baginda’s house in the evening of the 22.10.2006 when 3 of Altantuya’s girlfriends and their private investigator, Mr. Ang, turned up looking for her. They were causing a commotion so I called the police. An Inspector from the Dang Wangi police station turned up in a patrol car.

It was at this stage I received a call on my handphone from one Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC to Najib Razak. Musa Safri asked me to pass my handphone to the Inspector from the Dang Wangi police station who persuaded these girls to disperse.

It was Razak Baginda who had given Musa Safri my handphone number.

I had informed the police of these circumstances when they were recording s.112 statements from me during their investigations into this murder.

In total, I have given the police 5 statements in relation to their investigations, the details of which are as follows:

I. Statement recorded by DSP Gan Tack Guan of the D9 Serious Crimes department from the 01.11.2006 extending for about 3 months with questioning taking place on average twice a week. No deletion of references to Najib Tun Razak.

II. Statement recorded by a Malay lady ASP at the D7 Vice department on one occasion in November 2006. No deletion of references to Najib Tun Razak.

III. Statement recorded by the D6 intelligence division at police headquarters, Bukit Aman beginning the day after Razak Baginda was charged in court, continuously for 7 days while I was under remand. This is the statement in which all references to Najib Tun Razak were removed before I signed it.

IV. Statement recorded by the Child Protection Unit at Jalan Duta the day after I was released from remand at Bukit Aman. There was no deletion of Najib Tun Razak’s name from this statement because it was audio recorded.

V. Statement recorded at D9 division by DSP Gan Tack Guan in January or February 2007. This statement is the one in which DPP Salehuddin was doing the questioning over the phone and DSP Gan recorded my answers. This was just before the trial began.

I was never asked any question relating to the involvement of Najib Tun Razak in this matter when I was summoned to give evidence for the prosecution in court.

I was therefore concerned that the police and the prosecution were trying to protect and cover up the involvement of persons very closely connected to Najib Tun Razak. I believe the police recorded a statement from Musa Safri but this gentleman was never called as a witness in court and neither was Najib Tun Razak.

I felt it was necessary for the public to know exactly who the personalities involved in this murder were and that further investigations should have been pursued to discover the motive behind the killing of an innocent foreign national.

This is why I made that 1st SD.

2.2 Answer

I first made this SD at my lawyers office in Kuala Lumpur. I began narrating my experience to my lawyer sometime in early May 2008 over a period of about 2 months before it was completed.

2.3 Answer

The reason why I made this SD has been summarized in the answer given to question 2.1 above. My lawyer drafted this 1st SD based on my statements, information and knowledge of the events set out therein and narrated to him.

2.4 Answer

No one ‘instructed’ me to make this SD. I made it of my own free will without influence from any other party. The only other person involved in preparing the 1st SD was my lawyer Mr. Americk Sidhu. He was able to decipher my narration of the relevant events and to produce a legally coherent document on my behalf. My lawyer had no interests in assisting me. I had previously tried to find a lawyer to assist me but none seem prepared to do so.

2.5 Answer

My lawyer drafted this 1st SD.

Yes, all the matters stated in my 1st SD were within my personal knowledge.

I have been advised by my lawyers and verily believe that legally and technically speaking everything I have sworn to in my 1st SD that had been told to me by Abdul Razak Baginda and Altantuya as coming from some other person could be classified as hearsay as to the truth of such 3rd party statement but not as to the fact that either Abdul Razak Baginda or Altantuya repeated it to me.

The rest of the contents of my 1st SD is not hearsay.

2.6 Answer

As far as I am concerned there is nothing in my 1st SD which could be categorized as an untruth.

2.7 Answer

I was employed by Abdul Razak Baginda in my capacity as a Private Investigator. Our relationship would therefore be one of an employer/employee.

Yes, I had met Abdul Razak Baginda before I signed my 1st SD. I had met him on a number of occasions during the course of my employment but I cannot remember the exact number of times we came face to face.

When I first met Razak Baginda at his office at Wisma Getah Asli, he explained to me what had been happening as far as the harassment he was receiving from Altantuya was concerned and the purpose of my employment.

I had enquired from him as to why he had not reported the matter to the police. He told me he could not have the police involved as this may have jeopardize the position of a VIP who was also involved in his problem with Altantuya. Razak Baginda never mentioned who this VIP was at that stage.

I only discovered that the VIP he had been referring to throughout my employment with him was Najib Tun Razak. This was at the office of Razak Baginda’s lawyer on the morning of his arrest.

This occurred when Razak Baginda received an sms on his handphone while seated with me in front of his lawyer. He showed us both this message which read …” I am seeing the IGP at 11.00 am today….matter will be solved….be cool”.

Razak Baginda then admitted the VIP he had been referring to all along was Najib and the sms he had just received was from him.

2.8 Answer

I met Abdul Razak Baginda because he wanted a Private Investigator to keep Altantuya from harassing him and his family. Razak Baginda’s lawyer by the name of Dhirren Norendra advised Razak Baginda to contact me. I think Dhirren had seen my advert in the Bar Council magazine.

2.9 Answer

I met Razak Baginda at his office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur.

2.10 and 2.11 Answers

Please refer to paragraphs 3 to 24 of my 1st SD. The required explanations are succinctly set out in these paragraphs. A copy of my 1st SD is annexed hereto marked as Exhibit ‘PIB-2’.

2.12 Answer

I was not forced to sign the 1st SD. I was also not under any form of duress when I did so. I signed this SD completely voluntarily. My lawyer had prepared it on my instructions.

2.13 Answer

I was not offered any money by any party to affirm my 1st SD.

The subsequent questions nos. 2.14 to 2.16 are therefore irrelevant.

Question 3 : 2nd Statutory Declaration (SD) dated 4th July 2008

The answers to questions 3.1 to 3.19 are set out in the Q&A’s Parts 1, 2 & 3, prepared by my lawyers in October 2009 and which are annexed hereto as Exhibits’ PIB-3’, ‘PIB-4’ and ‘PIB-5’. Detailed explanations are provided in respect of all the questions posed under this head.

Question 4 : Other relevant matters

4.1 Answer

I have received more than 4 cheques from Deepak Jaikishan amounting to more than RM200,000.00. In fact Deepak has paid me a total of approximately RM750,000.00 over the space of about 1 year, from July 2008 to July 2009.

4.2 Answer

The reason why Deepak gave me these cheques is explained in detail in exhibits ‘PIB-3’, ‘PIB-4’ and ‘PIB-5’.

4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7 Answers

Deepak handed over the cheques to ASP Suresh who in turn handed them to a friend of mine. These cheques were then paid into my friend’s bank account in KL and the funds forwarded by telegraphic transfer to India. This was possible because Deepak left the payee blank. Alternatively, if the cheques were for cash, the funds were also forwarded to me in India by my friends after they were cashed.

Deepak also made payments into my wife’s bank account with the EON Bank in Kuala Lumpur from time to time.

Copies of my wife’s bank statements with the EON Bank showing substantial deposits and a dishonoured cheque from a company called ‘Mekar Dayabumi Sdn Bhd’ are annexed hereto collectively marked as Exhibit ‘PIB-6’.

I did not need to seek clarification from anyone regarding these cheques as I understood what they were for.

Annexed to this affidavit are copies of cheques I received from Deepak Jaikishan and Carpet Raya Sdn Bhd respectively:

Cheque No. 014554 dated 18.12.2008 in the sum of RM50,000.00 ( Exhibit ‘PIB-7’)

Cheque No. 014555 dated 22.12.2008 in the sum of RM50,000.00 (Exhibit ‘PIB-8’)

Cheque No. 014556 dated 26.12.2008 in the sum of RM50,000.00 (Exhibit ‘PIB-9’)

Cheque No. 014557 dated 31.12.2008 in the sum of RM50,000.00 (Exhibit ‘PIB-10’)

Cheque No. 014558 dated 18.01.2009 in the sum of RM50,000.00 (Exhibit ‘PIB-11’)

Cheque No. 564331 dated 31.03.2009 in the sum of RM50,000.00 (Exhibit ‘PIB-12’)

4.8 Answer

The reason why I decided to disclose the events and circumstances of this case is again clearly set out in detail in exhibits ‘PIB-3’, ‘PIB-4’ and ‘PIB-5’.

4. All of the answers to the questions posed above and as set out in ‘PIB-1’ are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and are provided based on my own knowledge and belief and I further hereby confirm that no party whatsoever has influenced any of my answers.