What framed, Sirul CONFESSED! Siva slams suggestions from Appeals Court judgement

KUALA LUMPUR - PKR leaders rubbished suggestions that the former bodyguards of Prime Minister Najib Razak had been framed for murder, pointing out that one of them had confessed to the killing - once from the dock during the murder trial and before that in a statement made to the police.

"It is ridiculous to make such a suggestion. With all due respect, we would remind that Sirul confessed to the murder. So how can the Appeals Court focus on evidence that it says was contradictory but ignore the confessions. Again, this only strengthens the view that a retrial should have been ordered to trash out the truth rather than acquit the wrongdoers," MP for Subang Sivarasa Rasiah told Malaysia Chronicle.

"It is very obvious that investigation and prosecution was very shoddy. In fact, we had previously warned that the prosecution's carelessness would invite a retrial. The judges should have borne that in mind and question whether such extraordinary incompetence on the part of the Attorney General was deliberate so as to pave the way for an acquittal. Why let the executioners as well as those who ordered and paid for the murder escape?"

Rehabilitating Najib's image?

In a shock decision sharply criticized by the media all around the world, Malaysia's Court of Appeal had acquitted two of Najib's bodyguards for the sensational 2006 murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu.

So far Najib has refused to make any comment on the case and this has added to the belief that a high-level conspiracy was underway to rehabilitate his image, which has been badly dented by the murder case, and at the expense of the integrity of the Malaysian courts which are already suffering from the poor-image that they are subservient to the top politicians in the country.

Last Friday, the Appeals Court had cited misdirection by the lower court and pointed that it had failed to summon a key witness - Najib's former aide-de-camp Musa Safri - to take stand.

Former corporal Sirul Azhar Umar and ex-chief inspector Azilah Hadri were sentenced to hang by the High Court in 2009 but their appeal was delayed time and again, with many political observers opining that this was deliberate so as to get the just-concluded May 5 general election out of the way before freeing the duo.

Najib and wife Rosmah Mansor have been accused ordering the two men to execute Altantuya, a 28-year-old Mongolian woman who was alleged to have been Najib's former lover and whose dad had said came to Malaysia to see Najib to "discuss something with him".

Discrepancies all the more reason for ordering a retrial

In the written judgment released on Monday, Court of Appeal judge Tengku Maimum Tuan Mat detailed why her 3-member panel had found it unsafe to accept the evidence from the police officers who had gone to Sirul's home in Kota Damansara during the investigation.

"There is thus a conflicting and inconclusive account of events as regards the discovery of the black jacket and Altantuya's jewellery. There is also no conclusive account of what exactly was said by Sirul as regards the jacket."

Justice Tengku Maimum said according to one of the police witnesses, ASP Zulkarnain Hassan, Sirul had said he kept the jewellery in the jacket, but the testimony of another officer did not disclose any such statement being made.

As for Sirul, he contended that one of the police officers, who said the jewellery was kept in the black jacket, had asked him to hold the jacket for the purpose of him being photographed with it, twice.

"The same officer took out some items from inside the same jacket and placed them on the bed before forcing him (Sirul Azhar) to point, by his finger, at all those items again for his pictures to be taken," Justice Tengku Maimum said.

"The second appellant is thus saying that the police had planted the jewellery in his house. Relevant to this issue is the fact that the keys to the house were in the possession of the police prior to the search for the black jacket from inside the unlocked cupboard in Sirul's unlocked room."

Picking on the nitty-gritty but ignoring the admission

The appellate court also contrasted the evidence of Zulkarnain and the other officer who were in Sirul’s house and noted conflicting and inconclusive accounts of events with regard to the discovery of the black jacket and jewellery.

The appellate court also noted that Zulkarnain had interviewed Sirul prior to going to his house but was puzzled as to why Zulkarnain had given the wrong particulars when lodging the police report on the interrogation.

“This is followed by another police report tendered by Sirul Azhar’s defence, purportedly by Zulkarnain with his name spelt wrongly, along with his date of birth wrongly stated and his rank as Chief Inspector (and not ASP).”

Similarly, with the evidence on Azilah purportedly leading them to the crime scene in Puncak Alam, the court found it was unsafe to accept the testimonies of the police witnesses.

“We find there is a non-direction by the learned trial judge in failing to evaluate the evidence before admitting the police statements (testimonies),” ruled Justice Tengku Maimun.

Similarly with the blood-stained slippers found in Sirul’s car, the court said Sirul had left his car keys with one Sergeant Rosli as he was on overseas assignment, in Pakistan.

“Sergeant Rosli had testified that he had not seen the (blood-stained) slippers when he started Sirul Azhar’s car twice. What was important that Sergeant Rosli had also testified that one DSP Mohd Khairi Khairuddin had asked for Sirul’s car keys for some unknown reason and Khairi handed the keys back to him three days later,” said the judge.

The court noted that Khairi was not called by the prosecution to testify and hence there was no evidence as to what happened in the car while it was under that officer’s custody.

Non-logic of not calling Musa Safri

Justice Tengku Maimun also said the court could not accept the prosecution’s logic on the non-calling of Musa, as political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda was jointly tried with Azilah and Sirul Azhar from the outset and it was the prosecution’s case that Abdul Razak had conspired with the two policemen to commit murder.

“Hence it is incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce all available, relevant evidence against the third  accused. The affidavit by Abdul Razak, which has been taken by the learned trial judge to be part of the prosecution’s evidence, contains  prejudicial matters against the appellants and it tends to suggest the guilt of the appellants."

“In fact, since Abdul Razak was acquitted and discharged with no appeal lodged by the prosecution, it appears that whatever the appellants did in committing the crime was entirely on their own accord.”

Justice Tengku Maimun said it must not be overlooked that “this ugly and horrendous episode” started with Abdul Razak’s request to Musa, before the two accused came into the picture.

“The evidence established that the appellants’ task was to patrol Abdul Razak’s house and their presence on Oct 19, 2006, was upon the request for such assistance from the political analyst to Azilah.

“The trial judge is bound to view the whole of the evidence objectively and from all angles in finding whether the evidence or the  facts point to the irresistible inference and conclusion that both the appellants committed this crime or whether there are some other reasonably possible explanation of those facts.

“Now that the task of patrolling the house had ended with murder, we agree with Sirul Azhar’s lawyers  that only Musa can confirm the scope of the request,” the judge ruled.

The court in its judgment found that circumstantial evidence was insufficient and not strong enough to sustain the finding of guilt.

“We are conscious that a heinous crime has been committed but where the guilt of the appellants had not been satisfactorily proved, we are constrained to give the benefit of the doubt to the appellants,” she said in ending the 47-page judgment.

Malaysia Chronicle