10 May, 2008
What alarmed the public was the extreme sensitivity displayed by the public prosecutor whenever the name of Najib Razak cropped up and the very aggressive obstruction he put up to ensure that the name stayed out of the court proceeding.
Kim Quek
A statement by Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak’s press secretary to deny any connection between Najib and the Altantuya murder case has failed to quell public skepticism over official handling of the case. This statement dated 30th April 2008 by Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad was in response to an article titled “Let’s send the Altantuya Murderers to Hell” written by Raja Petra Kamarudin in the Malaysia Today website.
A core issue of the controversy is: Is it true or not true that Najib was acquainted with the Mongolian beauty? An affirmative answer would have disastrous consequences on Najib, for he had repeatedly denied any knowledge of this girl (to the extent of invoking the name of Allah) during mass rallies in the Ijok by-election in April 2008, in response to intensive attacks by Anwar Ibrahim.
Reading through Tengku Sariffuddin’s nine-paragraph statement, one is uncertain whether Najib actually denies or merely “reserves the right” to deny acquaintance with the girl. I quote from para 3 of the statement:
“While it is up to the judiciary and police to deal with these allegations, Dato Sri Mohd Najib reserved the right in this ‘public opinion’ court to reiterate his earlier comments that he did not know and has never met the deceased. As such all these allegations are unfounded and designed to tarnish his standing within the Malaysian public.”
If Sariffuddin means Najib does not deny but merely reserves the right to deny this acquaintance, then how could Sariffudin follow this by saying “As such all these allegations are unfounded and designed to tarnish his standing within the Malaysian Public”?
If however Sariffudin means this statement to be an outright denial by Najib, which appears to be the case, judging from the general trend of the statement, then the present denial is in conflict with Najib’s previous stand to refuse comment on the basis of subjudice when an alleged photograph showing Najib having a meal with Altantuya was first asserted in court last year. Why didn’t Najib deny then when the news broke out, if in fact such comment is not subjudice? Isn’t Najib contradicting himself now by his present denial?
EXPLOSIVE PHOTO
In any case, it is pertinent to re-visit the explosive revelation that took place in the court on 29th June 2007 (Day 10 of the trial). Answering a question from Karpal Singh (lawyer for Altantuya family), prosecution witness Burmaa Oyunchinmeg (cousin of Altantuya, also known as Amy) testified that she was shown a photograph by Altantuya upon the latter’s return to Hong Kong from France. In the photo were Altantuya, Razak Baginda (third accused) and Najib Razak having a meal at a round table. Amy, 26, said she could distinctly remember the name of Najib Razak because she asked her cousin whether the two men were brothers, since they had the common name Razak.
In para 4 of Sariffuddin’s statement, he dismissed the said photo as hearsay, saying that it was not produced in court and that the claim of Altantuya having dinner with Najib and Razak was never corroborated. Such assertion by Sariffuddin was dishonest as it gave the impression that the court had failed to establish the existence of the photo. Whereas the truth is: Karpal was disallowed by judge Zaki Yasin from further examining Amy regarding the photo amidst heated argument and protest from prosecutor Mazid Hamzah and defence councel Hazman Ahmad (for first accused, chief inspector Azilah Hadri), who objected to Karpal’s line of questioning. Judge Zaki then dismissed Amy and ordered for a recess of 15 minutes before calling the next witness.
It is therefore not a case of not being able to establish a Najib-Altantuya link as implied by Sariffuddin, but a case of the court not allowing such a subject to be pursued.
What alarmed the public was the extreme sensitivity displayed by the public prosecutor whenever the name of Najib Razak cropped up and the very aggressive obstruction he put up to ensure that the name stayed out of the court proceeding. Such conduct betrayed ulterior motives, for a conscientious prosecutor, whose ultimate objective being to seek truth and serve justice, would not only refrain from blocking such new evidence but would on his own initiative probe into it.
STARTLING REVELATIONS
In fact, the court was duty bound to pursue such new lead involving Najib, considering the startling revelations made by Razak Baginda in his affidavit to the court earlier last year. In a desperate effort to secure bail, Razak’s lawyer Wong Kian Kheong read out an affidavit in court on 20th January 2007, which revealed among others, the following:
- On 17th Oct 2006, Razak sought the help of Najib’s aide de camp DSP Musa Safri to deal with Altantuya’s harassment against Razak. Musa then promised to send one of Najib’s bodyguards, chief inspector Azilah Hadri to help Razak.
- On 18th Oct 2006, Azilah met Razak for the first and only time at the latter’s office. Azilah told Razak that he had killed more than six people in the past and that he could help Razak.
- On 19th Oct 2006 (the day of murder), Razak called Azilah for help when Altantuya created a commotion in front of Razak’s house.
Later, three plainclothes police personnel were seen taking Altantuya away in an unmarked car at Razak’s house.
The same night, Azilah phoned Razak and said: “Sir, you can sleep well tonight”.
- On 20th Oct 2006, when Razak met Musa in Najib’s office, he enquired about Altantuya, and Musa replied that he had not been updated by Azilah yet.
The first and second accused (Azilah and Sirul) who were both Najib’s bodyguards were charged with killing the girl, and the third accused (Razak) who was a close friend of Najib but not a government official was charged with abetting the murder. The question now arises: how could the first two accused have obeyed the order to kill from the third accused when the following facts are taken into considerations?
a) these bodyguards who were from the Police Special Action Force were trained to carry out extreme duties and to obey orders absolutely from the superior like a “robot”, as testified by the deputy commandant of the police unit earlier in court.
b) Razak who met Azilah for the first time was no superior of these bodyguards.
WHO GAVE THE ORDER?
Considering these bodyguards did not know the girl, and hence had no motive on their own to kill her, the next question that begs for answer is: Who gave the order to kill and to destroy the body in such bizarre fashion? Tracing the sequence of events, the first target of investigation should naturally be Musa Safri, as he was the one who sent Azilah to Razak. And since Musa works directly under Najib and has limited authority himself, shouldn’t the next object of investigation be Najib the ultimate boss?
Why didn’t the police investigate Musa and Najib? Without such investigation and without their presence in court to answer critical questions, can any one blame the public for calling the police investigations flawed and court proceedings compromised (to borrow the expressions from Sariffuddin)?
And what about the shameful spectacle of the prosecution case, originally scheduled for one or two months, now dragging on and on to almost one year with no end in sight while time voids are filled with witnesses and testimonies of doubtful necessities?
Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi has announced big steps to restore judicial integrity; how about starting with a small step by removing the eyesore at hand that may soon become the infamous Altantuya trial?
No comments:
Post a Comment