Altantuya: For God’s sake, why and who? By P Ramakrishnan (dd 6 Feb 2015)

This is an article written by P Ramakrishnan. There is an 11 minute video at the end of this. The video features former IGP Tan Sri Musa Hassan giving some explanation about this case.  

Altantuya: For God’s sake, why and who?

By P Ramakrishnan

My dear Editor,

In response to Malaysiakini’s article: MP: Focus on ex-AG, cops and judges in Altantuya murder case as well which was published today, I’m forwarding an article that I wrote on 6 Feb 2015, hoping that it will be carried.

On 6 Feb 2015, I had addressed all the concerns raised in this article and it is so relevant today

With very warm regards,

RAMA

Altantuya: For God’s sake, why and who?

by P Ramakrishnan · 6  February 2015

The passing of the death sentence on the murderers of the pregnant, innocent Altantuya did not end the torrid tale of a horrendous murder. 

Mongolian fashion model and translator Altantuya Shaariibuu, 28, who was murdered in Malaysia in 2006 amid allegations of bribery, backmail, treachery and cover-up. 

If anything, it raised more persistent questions as to why and who actually wanted her dead.

Those – other than the two condemned men – really responsible for this gruesome and grisly crime would have rejoiced that the death penalty imposed on the two condemned men would have brought a closure to this brutal murder of a foreign national. With their deaths, the hidden hands responsible for her death must have thought the truth would be buried for eternity.

But there will be no closure until and unless evidence is adduced to expose those responsible for her death. The condemned men were merely the front men for those who wanted Altantuya dead. They were the hired killers. It is crucial to know why Altantuya paid for with her life.

Why was she murdered?

This question will hound Malaysia and the Malaysian judiciary until the truth is established.

Sirul and Azilah had no cause to kill Altantuya. They had no personal reason or grudge whatsoever to kill her. She had no dealings with them. She was no threat to them. She did not cheat them or betray them. She did not provoke them to commit this ghastly murder.

Then why was this foul deed committed?

To answer this question, we need to know the motive. What was the motive?

Although we accept that motive is not relevant for guilt to be determined since the law requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of only the actus reus (the guilty act) and the mens rea (the guilty mind), the Altantuya murder is very different.

The case took on a complexion of its own when Sirul said in court that he was offered RM100,000 to commit murder. Once that was disclosed, wouldn’t it be natural for the judge to ask, “Who offered you the money?”

An answer to that question, once posed by the judge, would have led the court to establish the veracity of Sirul’s answer. Once that was established, it was just a question of issuing a subpoena for that person or those persons and the motives could have been ascertained, exposing those responsible for wanting her dead.

If the trial was to establish the truth, nothing but the truth, wouldn’t this line of questioning be relevant and pertinent? This approach is all the more reinforced when Sirul said that he was made a scapegoat. In short, it would have honed or blunted Sirul’s credibility. Shouldn’t the judge have asked Sirul who made him a scapegoat and then put that person(s) on the witness stand to determine who was telling the truth?

Of course, the contrary view is that such judicial questions have no place in our common law system which embraces an adversarial approach and can only find its place in the continental or civil law system incorporating the inquisitorial approach.

Be that as it may, if indeed Sirul was offered RM100,000 – that’s what he claimed in his affidavit – and if that was the reason for the murder, then Sirul and Azilah became hired killers. It was such a huge sum and a tantalising offer to commit murder. They did not murder for their own sake but were engaged to do this foul deed.

Those people who wanted her dead must have been desperate to put her away for reasons best known only to themselves.

Who, as it were, put the ‘gun’ in their hands? Someone did. The killers merely pulled the trigger but the ‘gun’ was placed in their hands by some desperadoes by making this tempting offer. That person must obviously be wealthy. Who made this offer? Why did this unknown and unrevealed person/s want Altantuya put away for good?

Four names keep cropping up in connection with this foul murder: Razak Baginda, Najib’s confidante; Musa Safri, Najib’s aide-de-camp; and Sirul Azahar and Azilah Hadri, Najib’s bodyguards. It is incredulous that all these people who were close to Najib in their various capacities were somehow associated with Altantuya’s case.

It is this association that is responsible for all the speculation swirling around, which must be probed thoroughly. To dispel any speculations why these people from the PM’s Department were involved, there must be a thorough investigation. Why would these elite police personnel from the Special Action Unit in the PM’s Department be so directly involved in saving Baginda’s neck?

There were also other names that got entangled with the Altantuya’s case as well. ..All these people were implicated in P I Bala’s first Statutory Declaration. Subsequently, according to Bala, he was induced to withdraw all references and inferences to Najib in his second Statutory Declaration and paid to leave the country with his family.

Najib was never mentioned with the murder of Altantuya. But why were these steps necessary to hush up the matter? These were deliberate attempts to disassociate Najib from any suspicion of involvement with Altantuya.

Altantuya’s cousin Burmaa Oyunchime, while on the witness stand, wanted to submit a photograph taken in Paris at a restaurant which had the image of a very important person together with Altantuya and Baginda. Unfortunately the judge told her to submit the photo later but did not follow up on the offer. She was not asked to produce this photograph later on. Why was this evidence, as claimed by some, suppressed? Was there a deliberate attempt to protect someone?

Sirul had also pleaded with the judge not to impose the death sentence on him, saying: “I am the black sheep who has to be sacrificed to protect unnamed people.” This was an open admission of the existence of a plot hatched by mysterious personages to kill Altantuya. Was Sirul asked to divulge who these ‘unnamed people’ were?

Clearly there were other unseen hands pulling the strings. Azilah was merely a conduit who was passing on instructions received from higher-ups. Who were these superior officers?

To add further to suspicions, the presiding judge was suddenly and inexplicably removed before the trial started. It can be claimed that it was the prerogative of the bench to do so, but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth and fuels all sorts of speculations.

It is so obvious that there were so many opportunities to get to the bottom of this heinous murder, but these opportunities were never taken advantage of. Why?

The police, the AG’s Chambers and the judiciary failed to expose the hidden hands of the puppeteers mainly responsible for the death of Altantuya. It would appear that the truth will not be unearthed.

This is why we need a Royal Commission of Inquiry to look into the brutal murder of Altantuya with the hope that the truth will prevail. A man of honour and integrity should lead this commission.

Likewise, a similar chairman may help to establish the truth and expose the real culprits behind the murder. Until the setting up of such a commission, Sirul must be kept alive because he is privy to a lot of confidential information that can and will solve the mystery of Altantuya’s murder and expose those responsible for this dastardly murder.

A government which is not afraid of the truth will facilitate the setting up of the commission.

P Ramakrishnan

Aliran executive committee member

6 February 2015 

Ramakrishan, the long-serving former president of Aliran, has been granted a respite and now happily serves as an Aliran executive committee member. He has carried the flag for human rights and democracy for Aliran since its inception in 1977, when the term ‘human rights’ was considered something of a dirty word. 

Here is the video: