Damage control in Altantuya murder case – Ravinder Singh

On the heels of Razak Baginda’s statement that justice had finally been done with the sentencing of the two “murderers”, whom he called rogue policemen, to death and that the case was a “straightforward” murder, and the public’s questioning of the sentencing as motive for the most dastardly act had not been established, the inspector-general of police threw his weight behind Razak stating that motive will never be known as “the court did not determine a motive in the case concerning Altantuya (Shaariibuu)”.

Then, on the heels of his own statement, responding to criticism for saying that motive would never be known, Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar said murder probes covered all angles, including establishing the reasons behind the action and securing the necessary evidence for a prosecution.

He shifted blame onto the prosecuting officer for not bringing up the question of motive in court. And since it was not brought up in court, it will never be known, as it lies under the carpet.

What the IGP is saying is that there are people who know the motive for the murder, that is, at least the murder investigation officers, the Attorney-General who saw the investigation papers, and the prosecuting officer who had those papers in his hand.

The IGP might be right for if the investigation papers did not show motive, the A-G would have returned the file to the police to find out the motive without which a murder investigation is incomplete.    

So why did the prosecuting officer not bring up the question of motive in court? What was his motive in suppressing the motive for the murder as shown by the investigation papers?

Did the judges not bring their conscience to court when hearing this case, or else how is it that they did not enquire into it?

Surely our judges are not prohibited from enquiring into matters that are not clear as their duty is to ensure that justice is done, and doing justice requires that no stone is left unturned in discovering the motive, especially in a murder case.

And yet we had the Chief Justice telling Malaysians not to question the judiciary as if judges are infallible. 

So how did the prosecutor prove his case that something inexplicable overcame the two accused who drove to a house on a particular day, at a particular time, picked up a woman, drove her into the jungle, killed her and blew her corpse into smithereens? 

By the way, how did they get hold of the C4, which is found in the armed forces’ armoury only? When was that done, before or after the woman had been killed?

During investigations, the police should have discovered that Immigration records of Altantuya had been deleted. Was an investigation carried out into this, or is it not an offence to delete Immigration records? Why has the D-G of the Immigration Department not been charged with destruction of evidence? 

Similarly, the police knew about the C4. Did police investigators find out how it was smuggled out of a military facility? Is it not a crime to do so? Has anyone been prosecuted for this?

Are the Immigration who deleted the record and those who provided the C4 not in any way accomplices to the murder? 

As can be seen, the Altantuya case was not a “straightforward murder” as Malaysians are being told to believe. There were at least three crimes in one, (1) the murder itself, (2) the destruction of Immigration records and (3) the theft of C4 from an army camp.

Thus, there were more than the two “rogue policemen” connected with the murder, one way or another.

If no action is taken against the DG of Immigration for the deletion/tampering of records of foreigners coming to Malaysia, we could see an influx of criminals and Isis extremists coming in and “disappearing” among the local population with dire consequences for the country.

Similarly, if no action is taken against those who were responsible for facilitating the illegal removal of C4 from an army facility, we could see army ordnance in the hands of criminals, again with dire consequences for the country.

Oops, by the way, jet engines were once removed and sent to a foreign country, and recently an anti-tank mortar exploded in Bedong when someone was said to be trying to get some scrap metal from it. Wonder why he gambled with life when he could have collected a lot of scrap metal from roadsides in housing estates.   

The trial of this case thus appears to have been a high level “damage control”.

You see, in the first place, no such killing was supposed to have taken place as you can’t kill someone in Malaysia who was not even present in Malaysia as proven by Immigration records.

Well, man proposes, God disposes. This could not be truer than in this case. If not for the God-sent angler, there would not have been any murder of Altantuya.

* Ravinder Singh reads The Malaysian Insider.