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.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.