EX-AG GANI PATAIL, NOW THE HERO OF PAKATAN HARAPAN

Let me get this very clear. This is the same Gani Patail who Pakatan Harapan and the DAP supporters are calling a hero, right? And he was a bastard when he fixed up Anwar Ibrahim but now that he is opposed to Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak he is a Mother Teresa, Gandhi and Mandela all in one, right?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

“Gani Patail stands accused of fabricating evidence in the Anwar Ibrahim ‘black eye’ investigation in 1998, which stands un-rebutted although made by the police officer responsible for the investigation 12 years ago,” said Lim Kit Siang on 9th November 2010.

In that piece, Lim Kit Siang quote ex-senior police officer Mat Zain Ibrahim as saying, “To me this is just ridiculous when the evidence on Gani Patail are so obvious and yet the MACC close the case against him ONLY. It only shows that MACC and the Chambers are prepared even to go to the extent of affirming false affidavit to screen Gani Patail from legal punishment.” (READ MORE HERE)

That piece is about the crime of fabricating evidence regarding Anwar Ibrahim’s beating under police custody while handcuffed and blindfolded — ‘when Anwar was nearly beaten to death by the then Inspector-General in Bukit Aman,’ said Mat Zain.

Then there is the case involving Nallakaruppan a/l Solaimalai who Gani Patail threatened to send to the gallows to be hanged to the death if he did not falsely testify against Anwar Ibrahim and accuse him of sex with various women, married and unmarried.

And when this matter was raised during Anwar’s trial the judge wanted to send the lawyers to jail. I was told Nallakaruppan paid RM10 million to settle this case out of court. Can he tell us who he paid off because I am sure MACC would like to know. Or do they?

Let me get this very clear. This is the same Gani Patail who Pakatan Harapan and the DAP supporters are calling a hero, right? And he was a bastard when he fixed up Anwar Ibrahim but now that he is opposed to Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak he is a Mother Teresa, Gandhi and Mandela all in one, right?

And you want us to have confidence in Pakatan Harapan and trust them as the next government? And what was that which Abu Kassim Mohamed of MACC said? Ah yes, he said, “Pengurusan Tertinggi SPRM memberi jaminan akan terus melaksanakan amanah yang diberikan dengan bebas, telus dan profesional.”

*******************************************

Manjeet Singh apologises to court over use of Statutory Declaration

Utusan Malaysia, 2nd December 1998

The purpose of the SD:

”It was prepared primarily to place on a formal footing of events of Oct 2 and 12, 1998 as well as an aide memoir in the event that my client had to testify in the Nallakaruppan’s trial.

”It was specifically sworn on Oct 9 (i.e before the commencement of Nallakaruppan’s trial) so that there will be no allegations that it was a document prepared as an ”afterthought” or in panic reaction to the flow of evidence in the Nallakaruppan’s trial.”

”As the court may or may not be aware an application was made for Mr Manjeet Singh Dhillon to testify in the Nallakaruppan’s trial.

”Objections were taken by the prosecution to this and Mr Manjeet Singh Dhillon then served a subpoena on Wednesday on Datuk Gani Patail with a view to the latter being called to testify on issues set out in my client’s SD.

”As events transpired the Nallakaruppan’s trial was adjourned and the court’s ruling on my client’s application to testify was deferred. This was on Thursday Nov 26.” (READ MORE HERE)

*******************************************

Manjeet Singh Dhillon’s Statutory Declaration

9th November 1998

5. At the meeting the Hon’ble A.G. never questioned or disputed my allegations against Dato Gani Patail. Instead the conversation covered, among other things, the work that he, the Hon’ble A.G., was doing to improve the set-up and efficiency of his Department. Only at the tailend of our meeting did the Hon’ble A.G. allude to my letter and say that the letter was not very clear as to how my client would plead to an amended charge under the Arms Act. My response to that was that the client would enter a plea of guilty to an amended charge under the Arms Act. He asked for a letter confirming this and said that either he or Azahar would revert to me after that.

6. On 14 October 1998 1 wrote a short letter to the Hon’ble A.G. confirming my statement that the client would plead guilty. A copy of this letter is annexed hereto as MSD-2.

7. I telephoned and spoke to the Azahar indicated by the Hon’ble A.G., This was on 16 October 1998. The ‘Azahar’ in question is Encik Azahar bin Mohamed, Ketua Bahagian Pendakwaan. Encik Azahar confirmed receipt of my letter dated 14 October 1998 and he knew about my meeting the Hon’ble A.G. on 13 October 1998. He went on, in the same conversation, to state, that there would have to ‘be something else [i.e more than just a plea of guilt to an amended charge]’ and that he would revert when he had instructions. This ‘something else’ asked for by Encik Azahar was obviously what Dato Gani had asked for on 2 October 1998 and confirmed to me a common approach to extracting evidence from Nallakaruppan all Solaimalai by using the I.S A. ‘death threat’ as their bargaining chip. (READ MORE HERE)

*******************************************

Manjeet Singh Dhillon’s letter to Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah

12th October 1998

I had gone to this meeting with the expectation that, on the basis of my Iast October letter, there would be some discussion about possible sections under the Arms Act 1960 with a view to an amendment of Nallakaruppan’s present ISA charge. To my absolute horror and disappointment Dato Gani Patail used the meeting and the death sentence under Section 57 of the ISA as a bargaining tool to gather evidence against Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim. He had with him the letter I had written to you and copied to him. He was waving the letter about and kept on saying repeatedly, “I am not impressed” and suggesting that he would not be impressed with any plea to a charge under Arms Act but instead wanted more. This ‘more’ and it came across very loud and clear because Dato Gani laid it out in very clear and definite terms, was:

1. That Nallakaruppan was now facing the death sentence,

2. That there were other charges also under the ISA that he could prefer against Nallakarrupan but that if they [AG’s chambers?] hanged him once under the present charge what need would there be to charge him for anything else.

3. That in exchange for a reduction of the present charge to one under the Arms Act he wanted Nallakaruppan to co-operate with them and to give information against Anwar Ibrahim, specifically on matters concerning several married women. Dato Gani kept changing the number of women and finally settled on five, three married and two unmarried.

4. That he would expect Nallakaruppan to testify against Anwar in respect of these women.

I was shocked that Dato Gani even had the gall to make such a suggestion to me. He obviously does not know me. I do not approve of such extraction of evidence against ANYONE, not even, or should I say least of all, a beggar picked up off the streets. A man’s life, or for that matter even his freedom, is not a tool for prosecution agencies to use as a bargaining chip. No jurisprudential system will condone such an act. It is blackmail and extortion of the highest culpability and my greatest disappointment is that a once independent agency that I worked with some 25 years ago and of which I have such satisfying memories has descended to such levels in the creation and collection of evidence. To use the death threat as a means to the extortion of evidence that is otherwise not there [why else make such a demand?] is unforgivable and surely must in itself be a crime leave alone sin, of the greatest magnitude. Whether his means justify the end that he seeks are matters that Dato Gani will have to wrestle with within his own conscience.

I have agonized over this machinations of Dato Gani’s for the last 10 days. I have known you for close to 26 years. I cannot imagine you condoning such an act. And so this third and final letter on this matter and my decision to let you know what transpired on the afternoon of 2 October 1998. How far into your Chambers the corruption has spread I cannot say but that you will have to stop it goes without saying. (READ MORE HERE)