The Attorney-General is singing the same song and harping on the same point: There must be new evidence that the prosecution considers justifiable to re-open investigations into the murder of the Mongolian national.
What new evidence is he expecting to persuade him to re-open investigations into the grisly murder of Altantuya? Doesn’t the recent disclosure by PI Bala’s lawyer, Americk Sidhu, constitute new evidence? Isn’t that reason enough to re-open the investigation?
Americk’s disclosure negates the second Statutory Declaration (SD), which sought to white-wash Najib. To mitigate his alleged involvement in the murder of Altantuya, Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak, then Deputy Prime Minister, had instructed a senior lawyer, Cecil Abraham, to prepare a subsequent false SD to nullify the contents of the first SD, which implicated Najib in this ghastly murder of an innocent woman.
Strangely, the second SD was prepared in the name of Bala but without his knowledge, without seeking his consent and without obtaining his instruction for this fraudulent SD to be prepared. It was surreptitiously and deliberately made to give the false impression that Bala had on his own accord prepared this second SD to recant and retract his first SD.
Bala was then induced and forced to sign this second SD to exculpate Najib from this foul deed. Now that it has been established that Bala was not the writer of the second SD, there is no legal ground to accept it as a legitimate document. It is a criminal document that attempted to extricate Najib’s culpability. It now enjoys no legitimacy at all as a Court document.
Under the circumstances, the only document that is available and on record is the first SD. This is the new evidence that should warrant the re-opening of the Altantuya murder case because damning and damaging allegations are contained in this SD.
And yet, the AG insists, “The case has gone through a trial, where everything was adduced.”
Yes, Mr AG, what was adduced also included a false criminal SD that was meant to save Najib. This false document was accorded legitimacy in order to discredit the contents of the genuine document – the first SD.
Bala had disclosed troubling details concerning Najib that cannot be glossed over. They deserve to be seriously and thoroughly investigated.
Bala had revealed:
- He (Abdul Razak Baginda) had been introduced to Aminah by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.
- Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Aminah and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse.
- Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had all been together at a dinner in Paris.
- Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak wanted Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Aminah as he did not want her to harass him since he was now the Deputy Prime Minister.
He further added:
- “They (the police) then proceeded to record my statement from 8.30am to 6.00pm everyday for seven consecutive days. I told them all I knew including everything Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had told me about their relationships with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak but when I came to sign my statement, these details had been left out.
- “I have given evidence in the trial of Azilah, Sirul and Abdul Razak Baginda at the Shah Alam High Court. The prosecutor did not ask me any questions in respect of Aminah’s relationship with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak or of the phone call I received from DSP Musa Safri, whom (sic) I believe was the ADC for Datuk Seri Najib Razak and/or his wife.”
How can you then claim, “The case has gone through a trial, where everything was adduced.”
- “On the day Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested, I was with him at his lawyer’s office at 6.30am. Abdul Razak Baginda informed us that he had sent Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak an SMS the evening before as he refused to believe he was to be arrested, but had not received a response.
- “Shortly thereafter, at about 7.30am, Abdul Razak Baginda received an SMS from Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and showed this message to both myself and his lawyer. This message read as follows: “I am seeing IGP at 11.00am. today … matter will be solved … be cool”.
Was this the reason why Baginda was discharged without his defence being called?
You can no longer claim that the trial was conducted in an impartial manner. There were certain questionable aspects in the trial that bewildered the legal fraternity and raised eye-brows.
The presiding Judge ruled that motive was irrelevant in the case. Without motive why would anyone want to murder a person they hardly knew?
Bala contends that “having been a member of the Royal Malaysian Police Force for 17 years I am absolutely certain no police officer would shoot someone in the head and blow up their body without receiving specific instructions from their superiors first”.
We have to concur with Bala’s contention that he was gravely disappointed with “the standard of investigations conducted by the authorities into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu”.
We share Bala’s concern of “the strong possibility that there are individuals other than the three accused who must have played a role in the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu”.
Subsequently two were convicted and are awaiting their death sentence to be carried out pending their appeal. These two have claimed that they were offered RM50,000 and RM100,000 respectively to carry out this dastardly murder.
We need to know who offered this money and why Altantuya had to be put away for good. We need to know the identity of the person(s) lurking in the shadows who was/were responsible for causing the trigger to be pulled to blow to smithereens Altantuya Shaariibuu on 19 October 2006.
It is a moral obligation on the part of the AG to re-open this case and investigate Najib’s involvement. Domestic investigation won’t suffice – only a Royal Commission of Inquiry will be able to establish the facts and expose the truth that has remained hidden for more than six years.
Executive committee member, Aliran
8 April 2013