'Black-eye' investigating officer: Don't repeat 'Batu Putih' mistake

Attorney-General Gani and Anwar

KUALA LUMPUR - Writing his second open letter to Inspector General of Police Ismail Omar, the former investigating officer into the beating-up of Anwar Ibrahim, Mat Zain Ibrahim, implored the police to learn from Malaysia’s 'surrender' of the Batu Putih island (Pedra Branca) to Singapore.

Appealing for the 1998 “black-eye case”, in which it was later found that then IGP Abdul Rahim Noor was guilty of assaulting the former deputy prime minister under custody on September 20, 1998, to be re-opened, Mat Zain recalled how a mistake in a government letter could result in the loss of the nation's sovereignty.

“I believe Tan Sri [Ismail Omar] still remember how a one-page letter dated 21.9.1953 signed by an acting State Secretary had become one of main reasons that the nation’s dignity and sovereignty was undermined when we were forced to hand over Batu Putih (Pedra Branca) to Singapore.

"Imagine what the falsification of 65 pages of a document, on the orders of the country’s lawyers, could do to the country’s criminal justice system,” he wrote.

Mat Zain has been adamant that the current Attorney General Abdul Gani Patail had fabricated evidence in the 'Black Eye' case. A Royal Commission of Inquiry formed in 1999 later saw Rahim admitting his guilt within days of the Commission's hearing.

Recently, the Home Ministry, in a reply to a request by DAP member of parliament Lim Kit Siang to re-open the case citing Mat Zain's letter, said the police would not re-open the files because Mat Zain’s earlier allegation that false evidence was given during the investigation could not be proven.

“The Royal Malaysia Police (RMP) has conducted checks on the investigation involving Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in the ‘black-eye case’ in 1998. There was nothing to indicate the occurrence of false evidence in the investigation,” Home minister Hishamuddin Hussein said in his parliamentary written reply to Lim.

'Protecting certain individuals'

Claiming that the police’s stand in preparing Hishamuddin’s answer was very different from its stand when it was handling the investigation in 1998, Mat Zain said Hishamuddin seemed to protect certain individuals.

He also raised the question on whether the Home Ministry’s response was due to what he claimed was ‘insufficient references’ in the case’s investigation report.

“During the course of investigation, some important documents in the investigation report were lost at the hands of the AG and we had to replace them with duplicate copies.

“More so, the entire investigation paper had even temporarily 'disappeared' for about three weeks between 30.10.1998 and 20.11.1998," he added.

Drawing attention to the Commission’s proceedings between February 22 and March 4, 1999, Mat Zain claimed that Gani and then AG, the late Mohtar Abdullah, had requested one Dr Rahman to come out with the two allegedly falsified medical reports.

“I found out that the findings in the commission’s proceedings had caused the late TSMA [Mohtar] to panic. It was told that he was not informed that TSGP [Gani Patail] had already appointed Dr Rahman to prepare a report on 26.10.1998. He was also not informed of Dr Rahman’s background like what I had explained to TSGP.

"I believe that if the late TSMA had been informed of the two matters, it was not possible that he would not have appointed Dr Rahman for the second time because any falsification can be easily be traced as every investigation activity was recorded strictly by investigation team,” he claimed, adding that he was told that Gani had tried to ‘correct’ the situation.

“What I can verify is that Dr Rahman himself requested, even begged my assistants, to seek my co-operation to include a third report to neutralise the first report dated 26.10.1998 and second report, shown in Exhibit 9, which I refused,” he further claimed.

However, only the second medical report was included in the Commission’s findings presented to Yang Di-Pertuan Agong, added Mat Zain.

Mat Zain also added that he did not have any information at hand to charge that Gani had tampered in making sure the first report was not included in the final document.

“But I will not be shocked if he was involved, because no one else had a personal stake in the report," he said, adding that he was worried about the absence of documents in the Commission’s report because the copies and recordings in his investigation diary were "complete and clear".

“What worries me is that if even the Royal Commission of Inquiry’s report can be manipulated, just imagine what can be done to investigation records involving common citizens,” he reminded.

- Harakahdaily