Shah Alam High Court judge Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin yesterday acquitted political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda of the charge of abetment in the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu on October 19, 2006 on the ground that no evidence was adduced by the prosecution to contradict or challenge the exculpatory parts of Razak’s affidavit in his earlier unsuccessful bail application.
The judge said: “In the absence of the rebuttal evidence against the statements, coupled with the fact that there is no legal onus for Razak to rebut any statutory presumptions, there is clearly no reason for the statements to be ignored and rejected”.
Most Malaysians are baffled by the very technical reason for the acquittal.
While it would not be right for anyone to prejudge the guilt or innocence of any person in the murder of Altantuya, the fact of the abominable and heinous murder of the Mongolian translator, shot twice in the head in a jungle clearing in Shah Alam and blown up with C4 explosives available only to the military, setting off political, diplomatic and international reverberations that have not subsided , is a fact that cannot be extinguished.
With the acquittal of Razak Baginda in the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu, it is even more imperative that the Prime Minister-in-waiting Datuk Seri Najib Razak should submit himself to a Royal Commission of Inquiry on all the allegations ranging from murder to corruption dogging and haunting him and Malaysia.
I reiterate my call during the debate on the 2009 Budget in Parliament for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate and clear Najib of all the allegations made against him so that he could take over as the sixth Prime Minster of Malaysia next March unencumbered by the weight of grave and serious allegations against him – whether locally or internationally.
Najib had all along pleaded innocence to all the allegations. He should all the more support the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry which can more credibly and authoritatively vindicate his innocence.
If Najib is still unprepared to agree to the establishment of a full-fledged Royal Commission of Inquiry to clear him of all the allegations ranging from murder to corruption haunting and hounding him, I would expect him to make a fulsome statement in Parliament on all these allegations when he speaks in the Dewan Rakyat for the first time as Finance Minister and Prime Minister-in-waiting on Tuesday (November 4) during the government reply on the 2009 Budget debate, when he is to announce the government strategy for the country for the global financial meltdown and the world’s worst economic crisis in 80 years.
Razak Baginda’s “exculpatory statements” –
– Even though I had appointed P. Balasubramaniam, the harassment by Altantuya against my family and I did not stop. Hence, I asked DSP Musa Safri for help. I know Musa from my business dealings at the Malaysian Strategic Research Centre, a non-profit organisation.
– I asked DSP Musa for help to install a police beat box at my house and increase patrols in the area. I also sought help to be introduced to a police officer from the Brickfields police station as my house was under their jurisdiction.
– DSP Musa told me that he would introduce me to an officer who would help me.
– On Oct 26, 2006, in a meeting with Balasubramaniam and Dhiren Norendra (a lawyer), Balasubramaniam advised me to lodge a report to deport the deceased (Altantuya) from Malaysia. Dhiren and I refused.
– On Oct 17, 2006, the deceased came to my house and wanted to meet me. I was not at home at that time, and my wife learnt of her visit.
– On the night of Oct 17, 2006, I was at home with my family and there was a commotion outside the house.
– I called DSP Musa’s handphone but I could not get through. So I called Balasubramaniam and Dhiren to help me. As a result, a police patrol car arrived to settle the matter. I did not lodge a police report and Dhiren never advised me to do so.
– DSP Musa later called me and said that a police officer would call me to help me sort out my problem with the deceased. According to DSP Musa, the officer who would be calling me was the Brickfields district Criminal Investigation Department chief.
– On the morning of Oct 18, 2006, Azilah Hadri called me and introduced himself as the police officer who was referred by DSP Musa to help me with the harassment by the deceased.
– I subsequently met with Azilah at my office. I told him that the deceased had caused a commotion at my house, and asked him to conduct patrols around my house. I gave him my house address, my father’s name, the deceased’s name, “Hotel Malaya”, and where she stayed, based on the information given to me by Balasubramaniam. I also told Azilah that I had engaged Balasubramaniam and gave him his name and number. Before he left my office, Azilah asked me to contact him if she harassed my family and me again.
– On Oct 19, 2006, Balasubramaniam called me and told me that there was a commotion outside my house. I was out with my family at that time to break fast. So I called Azilah for help.
– Balasubramaniam told me that three plainclothes police officers came to my house in an unmarked car to take the deceased away. I believed they had taken her to the police station for interrogation.
– On Oct 20, 2006, I went to the deputy prime minister’s office for official duties and bumped into DSP Musa. I asked him what happened the night before and DSP Musa told me Azilah did not tell him anything. Several days later, I asked DSP Musa about the deceased, but his answer remained the same.
If I am guilty of those allegations I won’t want to be subjected to a RCI. You think I am dungu or what?
However if I am clean I will willingly go through one otherwise how to be portrayed as a clean PM?
A life had been lost and most tragically at that. We can only feel sorry for Dr Shaaribu, father of the murdered Mongolian beauty. Only God knows who her murder/murderers are. Time will tell.Truth and justice will prevail in the end!
“Shah Alam High Court judge Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin yesterday acquitted political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda of the charge of abetment in the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu on October 19, 2006 on the ground that no evidence was adduced by the prosecution to contradict or challenge the exculpatory parts of Razak’s affidavit in his earlier unsuccessful bail application.” Uncle Lim.
———————————————————
There are more unanswered questions than a simple acquittal. Someone should start a “X-File” investigation.
“THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE”!
It seems the prosecution did not check out all the leads –
for instance how did the immigration records get deleted?
Did they enter the country illegally?
Of course God knows who her murderers are, so do most Malaysians who can read. All the evidences, testimonies, motives and even SDs seem to point in one direction. But for some reasons all the allegations get deflected by some unknown but very powerful forces.
I felt very questionable about UMNO. UMNO is in real shortage of qualified persons to fill the job of president. Thus Najiv has to come out as the only qualified candidate (forget about the other guy who got only one self nomination). The rest of people in UMNO are also just hungry for power. With a person full of scandals and allegations as president, it is going to turn worst for UMNO, BN and boleh.
Abdullah should consider to stay on. I better say we don’t know what is going to happen between now and March 2009. May be a sleepy prime minister is better than a prime minister full of allegations. He will put boleh so low down in the eyes of international communities. Which country has a leader with this kind of allegations and scandals?
Mahathir better don’t endorse Najiv, until he is sure that Najiv is not involved in any wrong doings. Else he may make another mistake about ‘picking’ the leader.
This is called JUSTICE. My foot. It is really bolehland.
The two stupid idiots in the UTK are just pawns (deleted) A normal person will know that what motives have these two idiots have on the poor Mongolian woman to blown her to pieces. And in the first place, they dont even know her. There are thousands and thousands bums out there they can kill. Why picked on this woman? This whole episode stinks and DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE at all. The whole world will laugh at us {deleted)
This clearly proved that our judiciary has NEVER EVER been changed as promise by our sleepy flipflop guy.
How disgusting and shameful our country has become.
I can now see that the ex prime ministers’ sons will be controlling UMNO. There will be a Club. Qualification will be unimportant but has to be by birth. The cycle will start with only those second (and third in the future) generation within the Club to be qualified as prime minister. We have several candidates in the waiting list……
Just wondering how the judge, prosecution, defence, accused (both convicted and freed), witnesses and the whole lot of people involved in the “show” are going to have “peaceful nights” when their conscience will keep on haunting them for the rest of their lives! They may have gotten off the hook in this physical world of ours today, but come judgement day, we will see the judge, prosecution, defence, accused, witnesses and the others get what they deserve!
Many questions have yet to be answered after such a lengthy and tiring trial.
Who ordered the killing of Altantulya?
Where did the C4 come from?
How was the victim killed?
Who ordered the erasure of the immigration records of Altantulya?
How can you kill a person in this country who was not “physically” in this country?
Who was the mastermind behind the whole “act”?
What was the motive of the two policemen who carried out the killing and blowing up?
Who in reality are these two policemen? Since day 1 of the trial, they have been “wrapped” up like mummies both outside and in court. Who could “they” be? Are they really the ones whom they claim to be? Nobody has seen their mutt faces, so in the end, even if they are convicted and sentenced to be hanged, how can we be sure they are the ones hanged?????
This really makes a big MOCKERY out of our system of justice. With such a Chief Justice sitting on the bench, we can say “REST IN PEACE” (or pieces) to our system of justice!!!!!!
It is not the court that has to answer the questions posed by ktteokt, but the police and the AG office. Others than those who know the fact, everybody else is curious why the two accused would on their own carry out the killing of Atlantuju. The obvious answer is that they were doing it for the person or persons who wanted Atlantuja dead. This is more so when after killing her, the body had to be disposed off. It says that the mastermind(s) are afraid that the crime could be traced to them. The funny thing was the use of the means to make the body disappear could be traced to only one likely source. Who then had the authority to allow the use, or was there a breakdown in the command? If that command could breakdown, the lives of the people in the country particularly those in power are at stake. A RCI should be established so that the people in position of power would not be subject to life-threatening blackmail.
I read that in the early days, there were people whose job was to serve the jail terms for others. This was a kind of profession and the persons were well paid. Freedom is lost but how nice that you don’t have to work hard and get paid so nicely. Even nowadays, such kind of things are there for the car accidents. But would others die for you for the murder case?
In addition to this Mongolian lady case, isn’t it we have had one a few years ago involving the wife of a royal family? The security guard of the wife was sentenced, but no questioning was made on the wife of royal family (of course, she is also a royal family member). We already set bad examples in our judicial system. The opposition should have also questioned that particular case, in addition to this Mongolian lady case.
OJ Simpson escaped from justice in 1994, but the long arm of God caught him in 2008. There is always someone watching from above
great story line …..
we , rakyat …
always got the lifetime chance to watch great coverups in Malaysia.
Who are those corrupted ones ?
unmo malays ..
Who arethose that deprieved Malays from poverty living ?
umno malays ..
Who are those that called other races are threat to Malays and taking off with the actual wealth ?
umno malays ..
Who are those that changes our country policies and stay corrupted and blamed all these to other races and Malays believe their statement ?
umno malays ..
Who are those that can fan wide fire among races and blames Opposition as the reason and Malays praised them for their good work ?
umno malays.
Who among us are evil and still evil enough to laugh at us with fear and Malays thanked them for their livinghood ?
umno malays ..
wow ..such a long list of questions with only one answer ..heh !!
umno malays are that powerful and mightyful…
whatelse really left for the Malays themselves ..ohhhh!!
UMNO has just given datukship to Shahrukh khan. Now it must give another to Razak Baggins, the ugly hobbit who has the One Ring
ho…ho…ho…RCI??? You’ve got to be kidding! Who would in his right mind, agree to the setting up of an RCI to pry open his own can of worms? Of course he is going to deny it, notwithstanding the amount of power and wealth that this guy possesses which he will not hesitate one second to ensure that it will never see the light of day. You see, he has just too darn much to lose at this point. He is too close to the goal post right now to want to muck up this one last shot.
Altantuya’s father should approach the Mongolian foreign ministry to put pressure on the Malaysian government to conduct a RCI.
One does not have to be a genius to grasp all the facts of the case, even the ordinary man on the street feels that RB got acquitted because of his high connections and if Najib is man enough, he must agree to a RCI on him. Let’s see if he got the guts to go through an RCI.
This is the expected outcome of the court case, given the corrupted judiciary and political connections. NR cannot afford to let RB sing. However, God’s justice will ALWAYS prevail, and we can rest assured in that truth.
so ? it’s clear RB din order the killing-lah. he just wanted the police patrol his house and to rid the deceased away. he din know the police overstepped the border and took the extreme step. is rb guilty then ? is rb abetting murder in such \miscommunication\ ?
ask yrself, could a “political analyst” able to order cops murdering ppl ? not that he’s a minister or civil officer or royalty himself. and it will be great injustice to him if to convict him with such prosecution (bring it to international, don’t be joke-lah with prosecution team like this), and the real murderer lurking elsewhere.
Ladies and gentlemen. Enough stories about NAJIB. Too Bad. Very BAD REPUTATION ALREADY. No choice but, all of use must stand up and VOTE FOR NO CONFIDENT against him…
With all the nonsense related to him, all the smeared images signed direct or indirectly, we should now stop recognising him as a GOOD MALAY LEADER not NOT EVEN A FAITHFUL MUSLIM and also he is NOT GOING TO BE A PROMISING LEADER OF MALAYSIA.
PAKATAN RAKYAT pls vote him out!
Dad of Altantuya must bring the case to World Court!
If he needs money to do that, we Malaysians will contribute whole heartedly!
Let the World Court makes the judgement on najis and rosie.
Our Kangaroo courts are too tainted with scandals after scandals.
If this YB has any Ministerial Integrity left in him he should stand down
THE WHOLE TRIAL PROCESS IS JUST A CIRCUS SHOW. HOW CAN BAGINDA RAZAK GOING TO BE GUILTY FOR THIS CRIME NOT COMMITED BY HIM, HIS ONLY GUILT’S IS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH IN THE TRIAL. BUT HE WILL NEVER SLEEP WELL FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE.
“Dad of Altantuya must bring the case to World Court!” – mendela at 18: 23.21.
Reporters asked Altantuya’s father Dr Setev Shariibuu Setev whether he would be taking the matter up with the World Court as a last resort.
Unfortunately, as far as I know, the International Criminal Court (ICC) established in 2002 has no such jurisdiction over private crimes.
ICC was founded upon the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Jurisdiction clearly spelled out there covers only areas like genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression, all of which, if committed by private individuals (such as Hitler’s henchmen in Nuremberg trials, Japanese generals in Tokyo Trials, Saddam Hussein) were/are committed under the banner of their nation states or party organisation in terms of large-scale atrocity against any body or group of peoples.
The other point is whilst Mongolia is one of the countries having ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute, Malaysia has not.
Meanwhile Altantuya’s family has sued the three accused for her murder and the Malaysian government, seeking RM100 million in damages over her death. There is also a threat of Mongolian government severing diplomatic ties with Malaysia.
Other than that there’s nothing much Altantuya’s family could do except to approach international human rights organisation.
Dr Setev Shariibuu Setev has left two questions for Malaysians to ask:
1. who arranged the visa issue for Altantuya Shaariibuu when she visited France?
2. Who was accompanying or attending the trip to France with Altantuya Shaariibuu and what did they do there?
Well if the answers are not obtainable in Malaysia, they might – in France.
I wish to issue a fatwa that Mr N needs to appear before a RCI to clear his name.
Tan Sri Zaki Tun Azmi’s appointment as Chief Justice of the Federal Court whilst High Court judge Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin acquitted political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda of the charge of abettment in the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu. Which Zaki did better job?
This story is better than YB Josephine’s story. First, A ordered two policemen to kill B and blown up with C4 come from Defence Ministry. Then, A ordered the erasure of the immigration records of B. For having crime evidence of A, B MUST DIE.
Dear PM Abdullah,
I am sure you want to continue on your premiership. Very simple! Set up a RCI against Najib.
Murderers have no fear.
Murderers have no conscience.
Murderers are great liars.
Don’t bet your money on them their guilt will haunt them!
@Jeffrey:
“Well if the answers are not obtainable in Malaysia, they might – in France.”
Public and private organisations in the EU are obliged under ‘Freedom of Information’ laws to divulge all stored data relating to a person on request. If her father were to submit a request to … http://www.cada.fr … looks like a good start, a response of some kind must be provided. He may have to find a local citizen or organisation (Mongolian ambassador?) to help – he may struggle as a non-EU citizen.
I suspect though, the piece of information you’re looking for may well be erased from any information provided. Another person’s name is their information, not yours! Her father should have already been advised he can do this – this kind of administrative procedure in Western Europe is extremely straightforward (almost invariably available by post – no need to go anywhere) and usually fairly quick. I wonder what the outcome was?
LKS and many people here seem extremely confident that Najib have done something wrong and as such is guilty. Maybe you have some evidence or knowledge that others like myself don’t? Care to share? Better still, publicise this evidence; I am sure Anwar is in a good position to do so (if the evidence is there in the first place)
If you don’t have any evidence and are just dependant upon heresay and internet postings, then might I say that you are misguided and are infringing upon one of the principles of justice i.e. a person is innocent till proven guilty.
No matter on which side of the political divide we are on, common principles and values should always be upheld. In this case, it is about defending the principle of innocence till proven guilty. It is extremely bad when PR make so much noise about this principle when it comes down to RPK etc but then make an about turn when it comes to Najib. I am sure BN is guilty of the same in some instances as well.
“a person is innocent till proven guilty. ” quote imranj78
oh yes please free all under ISA sent them to court.
if no your will pratices double standard here.
please read current Bakri musa article “UMNO Crippled By Institutional Inertia ” for thier own benafit.
please free your retarded mind,open up your thinking tought no just follow blindly shame of you.
“There are more unanswered questions than a simple acquittal. Someone should start a “X-File” investigation.” Jamsey
Why?? You think it is funny?
The prosecution has clearly satisfied the standard of proof needed to establish a prima facie case against all three defendants for murder and abetment to murder. There is enough evidence which if unrebutted would prove the guilt of all three accused.
Please hire the most well known forensic scientist, Dr. Henry Lee, to do the investigation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_C._Lee
Please hire the most well known forensic scientist, Dr. Henry Lee, to do the investigation.
http://www.drhenrylee.com/
This is in reference to what imranj78 posted at 00: 54.56 above.
I don’t see YB Lim Kit Siang (“LKS”) as implying any particular person has done wrong or is guilty. Nor is LKS denigrating the time honoured principle of ‘a person is innocent till proven guilty’ when he broaches the subject of Royal Commission of Inquiry. He is too experienced and knowledgeable in matters of life and law to fall under such a mental trap.
However the fact that is incontrovertible is the existence of
swirling rumours and speculations of a negative nature relating to an aspirant of high public office. And it is recognised and said often enough that a person aspiring for public office should not only be reputable but also ‘seen’ and persceived by the public as reputable and willing to defend his reputation against slurs and aspersions especially if these slurs and aspersions are claimed vicious and without merits and truth.
What LKS suggests is that any aspirant of public office who is a target of swirling rumours and aspersions of a grave negative nature owes it to himself – and the integrity of the public office to which he aspires – to dispel, clear and discredit and be seen to support the dispelling, clearance and discrediting of such grave negative rumours, especially so when such rumours are based and claimed to be based on absolutely no foundation or truth – which would make such rumours easy enough to dispel, clear and discredit, once and for all of which one of the best means to do so is the widely accepted means of a public enquiry by the Royal Commission of Inquiry that commands public confidence.
Is there anything so unreasonable or unfair in LKS’s suggestion? You tell me!
LKS uses words like “even more imperative” in light of Abdul Razak Baginda’s acquittal of the charge of abetment. Now why would he use such words as “more imperative”? What is the connection between the words “even more imperative” on one hand and Abdul Razak Baginda’s acquittal on the other? It must be a rational connection if LKS were not to be taken as someone fast and loose in his choice of words. What is the implied assumption behind what he said that we can ascertain if LKS’s assumption is rational or irrational?
· even if it were true that Azilah and Sirul were guilty – and I am not saying at this juncture that they are less some people here may accuse me of denigrating or being sheer ignorant of the time honoured legal principle and presumption that ‘a person is innocent till proven guilty’ – it is the nature of their job and training under the Special Force, “Tindakan Khas”, that they will act on instructions of a “superior” in the chain of command than initate missions on their own on a random opportunity basis without motives;
· so if upon that premise Razak Baginda was not, as per finding of the Court, responsible for the instructing and ordering ‘ who higher up did??????
Now LKS may be accused of not knowing what he said only if the above two implicit assumptions underpinning his choice of words are irrational or invalid.
Is there anything so unreasonable or unfair in LKS’s implicit assumptions?? You tell me again!
My guess is that LKS – like many other Malaysians disquieted by the conduct of investigation and outcome of the trial – makes this fundamental asumption, that:-
Apologise for a typo omission – the following should be inserted immediately after 1st para before beginning of the 2nd :
” I surmise that LKS is likely to have proceeded upon two assumptions:- “
And …”lest”instead of “less” (Ooops!)
Movie illustration:
I watched a movie, the story was, judge announced (2) murders or betrayers charged under ‘hang’… although appearance ‘yes’, but back-end was ‘grabbing others to replace’ then ‘release them’…
Q1: Do you know the exact (or real) face of those 2?
Q2: Will they be charged ‘hang’, if so, how to ensure will be the 2?
Ending was, even worst, planned to change identity becoming rich man, walk free in public without getting notice… !!! …
TQ.
Warmest regards.
it’s anarchy.
According to The Malaysian Insider report of November 02 2008, Razak Baginda was saved by his earlier first affidavit (“First Bail Affidavit”) filed two years ago to obtain bail before the trial started .
According to The Malaysian Insider report, although Razak Baginda failed then to get bail and there was criticism then by legal experts who considered it a wrong move to disclose his case so early in the trial, yet that “turned out to be an astute move”.
High Court judge Mohamed Zaki Mohamed Yasin ruled that the First Bail Affidavit’s contents that Prosecution had not attached importance and had neglected to adduce evidence t o rebut or contradict “helped clear him of the charge of instructing the two policemen to kill Altantuya Shaariibuu”.
“In the absence of the rebuttal evidence against them (statements in the affidavit), coupled with the fact that there is no legal onus for him to rebut any statutory presumption, there is clearly no reason for the statements to be ignored and rejected,” the judge said.
Now that the Judge has ruled that the contents of the First Bail Affidavit are important, nay even pivotal in securing Razak Baginda, it may be necessary for the public, observers and commentators of the case to revert their attention to the contents and details of that First Bail Affidavit – all 13 statements in it (since there is now judicial endorsement of its contents).
In a nutshell the statements in this First Bail Affidavit exculpatory of Razak Baginda are incriminatory in another direction that has not yet been the target of investigation.
To quote The Malaysian Insider report : “In a nut shell the 13 statements in the First Bail Affidavit” – up to now not rebutted by evidence put forward by prosecutors – “recounted how Abdul Razak had asked Musa Safri, a security aide of the deputy premier, for help because of Altantuya’s harassment…Musa reportedly said he would introduce him to a police officer. The co-accused Azilah Hadri, an officer from an elite unit that guards VVIPs, called Abdul Razak the next day. Abdul Razak said he called Azilah on Oct 19, 2006, when Altantuya turned up at his house….Altantuya was taken away by three police officers. Abdul Razak said he subsequently asked Musa what had happened to Altantuya but the aide said Azilah did not tell him…The judge found these statements were corroborated by witnesses at the trial, and “clearly negated and nullified the act of abetment as alleged”.
The important questions to be asked by YB Lim Kit Siang are therefore:
1. why was there no initial investigation by authorities Musa Safri connected to introduce co-accused Azilah Hadri to Razak Baginda?
2. if it were argued that there is no credibility in this “connection” to justify an investigation, it has now become untenable to justify this argument as the Judge/Court has already made a pivotal decision to acquit Baginda without Defence called, resting solely on veracity and truth of this connection as stated in the First Bail Affidavit ; and
3. that 2. being the case, the public are now entitled, in the light of the outcome and rationale of the recent judicial decision, to expect and demand the opening of investigations by authorities into this “connection” and what role if any Musa Safri played in this episode or at least what light he could cast or shed towards understanding the truth behind the tragic killing of Altantuya Shariibuu.
Link to the above The Malaysia Insider Report discussed may be accessed here:
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/11612-razak-baginda-saved-by-his-affidavit
1)NR had already sworn on Koran that he never met or known the victim so what is this RCI all about? His “links” to this murder are that he knows RB and 2 of his personal bodyguards are now charged with murdering Altantuya. Nothing more ,nothing less.
2)If you guys dont agree with the verdict eat your hearts out. Appeal then.
3)If the answer is somewhere out there, go find it and when you do , come back otherwise dont bother. Maybe someone connected to this purchase of submarines and fighter jets in France or Russia might pop out suddenly to change everything. Just maybe?
4)The two masked men on trial now. Is there a need to mask them? Those charged with murder can request to be masked in Malaysia when attending court? Baffling!
5)This whole thing has not ended yet. Maybe more shocking relevations are in store. We just have to wait and see.
“Most Malaysians are baffled by the very technical reason for the acquittal.”
Yes, we are not only baffled but stunted as to the ‘technical reason’ for the acquittal.
Although we cannot comment on the court decision, which will amount to perjury, but is there any thing that the family of the victim can do? Appeal against the court decision? Any chance of a review knowing the judiaciary system which had been under many effort to reform but yet to see any reform at all?
The truth must be revealed by all means by the prosecution. Otherwise the repercussion is far and wide.
The acquittal of Razak Baginda is so predictable. The 2 years trial is wayang only. Probably Adullah BADawi is using Razak Baginda murder trial to keep Najib and his boys out of power. Now, that BADawi is out of power, a new Chief Judge elected, Najib has the full power to release his friends.
I am afraid those two policemen would be released too. Or probably sentence to death but how can we be sure that they are the ones hanged and not someone else? Probably they would be given a new identity. That is how things work in Malaysia.
The acquittal of Razak Baginda is the saddest day in Malaysia. RPK put in jail and Anwar Ibrahim trial for sodomy while the most likely person to murder Altantunya is free.
# undergrad2 Says:
Today at 02: 41.10 (10 hours ago)
“There are more unanswered questions than a simple acquittal. Someone should start a “X-File” investigation.” Jamsey
Why?? You think it is funny?
————————————————–
My comment is not for you to understand, if you don’t understand.
bclee,
Your seemingly uncivilised posting deserve no response. But being a reasonable person, I will be understanding as you might not know better.
I have made my views on ISA clear before in other topics and I will not repeat them here. Suffice for me to say that I am consistent and not applying double standards!
Jeffrey,
When Obama was accused a Muslim, when he was accused a racist etc. was there a Royal Commission formed to clear his name? Of course not because there is no need of such a waste in tax payer’s money and there was no evidence in the first place to justify such an inquiry.
The presence of rumours and hearsays are not sufficient to call for such an inquiry. I would agree to such an inquiry if there are based on strong evidences. But to this day, are there any? Seriously I ask you, are there any?
That’s why I disagree wih LKS’ proposal on a RCI and I find it principally misguided. If we follow LKS’ view, then we will have to form a RCI for every `surat layang’ that comes to surface that implicates our leaders. Now that is WRONG!
I can’t help myself but to liken this case to the 1987 movie “No Way Out”. We see similarities to a certain extent: sex, murder, mistress, the alleged sharing of mistress, defence affairs, aide to defence minister, scandalous coverup.
In the movie, the audience knows who killed the girl. In the Malaysian version, the public is led to follow the pieces of statutory declaration, affidavit and witness testimony; while the truth and motive of the murder may never find its way out.
In the midst of allegation and evidence tainting the credibility and integrity of our judiciary system, we see the following links and key figures:
Altantuya – brutally murdered, shot twice and blown up with the unknown-origin C4. She reportedly had an affair with Razak Baginda that lasted until 2005. She reportedly had worked as Abdul Razak’s translator on a deal he was brokering for the Malaysian government to buy submarines from France. The pair seem to have travelled to Paris together for the submarine deal. After the breakup, she had been reportedly harassing and blackmailing Razak Baginda.
Abdul Razak Baginda – charged with abetting Azilah and Sirul in the murder of Altantuya but has since been acquitted. He was a defence analyst and close aide to Defence Minister Najib, especially when Najib is on the defence shopping spree.
In 2002, he owned Ombak Lauk, the company which owned Perimekar that brokered the purchase of three French Scorpene submarines by the Royal Malaysian Navy. The government paid euro 1 billion for the three submarines, for which Perimekar being the middleman received a commission of €114 million. Yes, this long forgotten deal has truly belittled the Eurocopter deal as peanut.
Quoted then Deputy Defense Minister Zainal Abdidin Zin in Parliament, the money was paid for “coordination and support services” which is 11% of the sales price. The amount was multiple times larger than Eurocopter. Razak Baginda is a recipient of the Legion d’Honneur for his contribution in pushing through the deal.
Najib – the then defence minister claimed he did not know Altantuya. He publicly swore according to Islam at Masjid Jamek Guar Perahu that he never knew her. The opposition has consistently accused Najib of involvement in dubious large amount of commission payment to close associates for the defence deals.
Precedently before the decision to defer Eurocopter, we have seen the purchase of Scorpene submarines and Sukhoi fighter jets under his administration. Unconfirmed source indicated Najib introducing Altantuya to Razak Baginda at an international diamond convention in Hong Kong.
Chief Inspector Azilah – member of the police elite force, at the time assigned to the office of Najib to play the role of bodyguard to the VVIP. He was reportedly introduced to Razak Baginda through DSP Musa Safri.
Razak Baginda reportedly seeked help from Musa, due to the harassment from Altantuja. The day the commotion broke out, Azilah and two other officers took away Althantuja from Razak Baginda’s house, Altantuya was never seen in public again and found to be murdered.
Corporal Sirul – like Azilah, member of the police elite force.
DSP Musa – then security aide of Najib. In the affidavit filed by Razak Baginda, Musa said Azilah did not tell him anything the night before the three officers took Altantuya away.
Judge Zaki – pointed out the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Abdul Razak is guilty of abetment. Due to the affidavit filed by Razak Baginda, thus there is no prima facie case against him. While for the two accused, they have to enter defence because there is evidence they “pull the trigger”.
Prosecution team – there was a last-minute change of the prosecution team. Tun Majid Tun Hamzah was called in to lead the new prosecution team. Court trial was postponed to allow th new team to examine the evidence.
RPK – now under ISA detention and charged with civil defamation and criminal sedition suit. In a statutory declaration, RPK accused Najib’s wife, Rosmah of being one of three individuals who was present at the crime scene when Altantuya was murdered. The other two were Lt-Col Aziz Buyong and his wife Lt-Col Norhayati, Rosmah’s aide-de-camp.
PI Bala – a private investigator hired by Abdul Razak, made a statutory declaration that Abdul Razak had told him that Najib had had a sexual relationship with Altantuya, introduced her to Abdul Razak, and made arrangements to protect Abdul Razak from the murder trial. He and his family are now reportedly hiding in a neighbouring country.
No one at this point can tell the complete picture of this high profile murder. If Razak Baginda chooses to remain silent since being acquitted, he can be assured of the bright future in continuing his career as the defence analyst and arms broker. Else, it is logical for him to fear the phantom force that is capable of silencing voices that threaten the position of the high ground, which may be unwilling to unveil the dirty truth at all costs.
If the prime-minister-to-be Najib remains silent and is unwilling to clear the air in a Royal Commission of Inquiry, the people will always remember him living in the shadow of Altantuya during the tenure of his premiership.
every court case depend who was involve
“The judge found that 13 statements in the affidavit were not rebutted by evidence put forward by prosecutors. In a nutshell, they recounted how Abdul Razak had asked Musa Safri, a security aide of the deputy premier, for help because of Altantuya’s harassment.” MalaysianInsider
Not rebutted by evidence?? It is for the defence to rebut the allegations made against the accused, supported by whatever evidence the prosecution has introduced.
It is the duty of the prosecutor to lay down the foundation, facts during this stage of the trial, provide some evidence as to the involvement of the accused in the crime he was charged with. The crime is that of abetment. The judge looks at the evidence put forward by the prosecution and decide if they can be believed. If they can be believed it would call for a rebuttal by the defendant. For the rebuttal to occur the defendant would have to be called to make his defence.
But instead the judge ruled that there is no case to answer. There is a case for the defendant to answer. He would have to take the stand in his own defence and tell the court, for example, the circumstances that led to him knowing police officer Sirul. Razak Baginda would have to be examined and cross-examined on the alleged facts contained within his affidavit. It is his right to remain silent but then he may decide to take the stand in his own defence. We are entitled to know what he would have said.
“There are more unanswered questions than a simple acquittal. Someone should start a “X-File” investigation.” Jamesy
Someone is dead i.e. murdered. The next one could be your sister, or your mother or your grandmother who could be raped and murdered. This is not the time to show a callous indifference to the suffering of others.
“…When Obama was accused a Muslim, when he was accused a racist etc. was there a Royal Commission formed to clear his name?”… imranj78 asked, as if this kind of accusations – which, according to Obama, was drawn only from his having lived, when young, in Indonesia, and once attended a school that was mostly Muslims for a few years – and which even the McCain camp dissociates from, could rightfully be compared and treated at the same level and accorded the same serious concerns as that of Altantuya’s murder case, with all its shortcomings in investigations relating to it.
When one uses a grape to compare with durian as basis of argument, no meaningful exchange can be expected to ensue from trying to respond to such an argument.
undergrad2 Says:
Today at 01: 53.53 (2 hours ago)
“There are more unanswered questions than a simple acquittal. Someone should start a “X-File” investigation.” Jamesy
Someone is dead i.e. murdered. The next one could be your sister, or your mother or your grandmother who could be raped and murdered. This is not the time to show a callous indifference to the suffering of others
—————————————————-
What makes you think my comment renders any callous indifference to the suffering of others and hence your interpretation of “funny”? Do you understand the quote unquote X-File? Then again, my comment is not for you to understand. My suggestion to you – understand this quote – “It’s better to keep one’s mouth shut and be thought a fool rather than open it and resolve all doubt.” – Abraham Lincoln. But then again, you might not understand.
Zimbabwe , eat your heart out, here comes Malaysia, overtaking you in every aspect, this banana republic preactices the jungle law that is used to deceive the citizens, the other two persons accused of killing Altatantuya would also be freed soon , as the corrupt gomen does not want to make it too obvious, all the top ministers are involved in this cover up, itr just so obvious.,
Tax payers monies are being used for this purpose , and they think the citizenxs are all fools, how on earth the NEP’s policy is to b acheived , if this the way the country is being governed?????
Where the prosecution has outlined and adduced evidence in support of its case along lines pointing a certain direction (say) direction “A”, then the accused may be acquitted based on having no case to answer to the Prosecution only if the Prosecution evidence adduced at the close of its case has not quite reached the minimum standard or cover the minimum distance (what is in Latin called the “Prima facie” standard) in the direction “A” for the case to be justified proceeding further thereby requiring the accused to push the line towards direction “A” backwards against it until it is so far backwards that overall a reasonable doubt has been created, failing which, by the accused, the Prosecution case would have covered the minimum distance required and that prima facie line would have held to secure a conviction.
What has happened here, in the simplest terms, to explain what Undergrad2 is (I think) trying to say is that the acquittal here is justified based on Razak Baginda’s earlier first affidavit (“First Bail Affidavit”) filed two years ago to obtain bail before the trial started, which the court ruled that First Bail Affidavit’s contents had been neglected and not been rebutted by the Prosecution.
Now the First Bail Affidavit is not in direction “A” built by the Prosecution during trial. Prosecution skipped attention to it. The contents of this First Bail Affidavit are pointing another direction of enquiry – lets call it “B” – initially put forward by the accused more for securing in the early stages a bail rather than for purposes of actual trial.
It is not for the Prosecution to contradict and rebut – push back the line in direction “B” taken by the defence for bail.
It is only neccesary for Prosecution to cover that distance in direction “A” that it has formulated: if not, Defence need not be called to rebut, if so it has to.
It is therefore strange that instead of the above preceding, Defence was given victory of having no case to answer because Prosecution has allegedly not covered sufficient distance in terms of evidence towards direction “B”, when Prosecution case has all along been proceeding along direction “A”, which it is its duty to prove having covered sufficient distance in direction “A” – not direction “B”!
to fabricate a sodomy case, how much people’s money was wasted?
for a much much more serious case as murdering using explosive, we should use all possible resources to find out the truth and send ALL the convicted to hell. That is why I suggested Dr. Henry Lee should be hired to solve the mystery
“But it turned out to be an astute move. High Court judge Mohamed Zaki Mohamed Yasin on Friday ruled that the tell-all affidavit had helped clear him of the charge of asking two policemen to kill Altantuya Shaariibuu.” Malaysian Insider 3/11/08
His affidavit helped clear him of the charge?? Affidavit evidence cleared him of the charge? People, help me understand!!
If all I need to do to clear myself of the charges against me is for me to take the witness stand and make hearsay statements which are self-serving or have those statements reduced into writing and admitted into evidence without me having to be cross-examined as to their truth and accuracy, then there are criminals out there walking our streets who should have been locked up!
The accused need to be cross-examined as to the truth of the statements he made in his affidavit. With the judge ruling that the accused has no case to answer, the people have been denied the use of one powerful tool – that of cross examination.
I thought trials are about the search for the truth and the pursuit of justice??
“Do you understand the quote unquote X-File? Then again, my comment is not for you to understand. My suggestion to you …” Jamesy
Is that all you have to say?? That’s pathetic!
Someone’s dead and in pieces. And someone must surely be responsible for it. The public is looking. Mongolians are looking. Bastards. In fact the whole world is looking. Not something we can be proud of. Certainly, not this sort of publicity. Not with the strongly denied political connection which the case was rumoured to have.
Razak Baginda – the political analyst – and two others were roped in by the police. It is clear that they hoped to nail the “You are responsible” tag upon the three heads. I am sure the police have done their homework. And have therefore came to the conclusion that their hope is hope-able and pursue-able, actually. Ask the AG. He was satisfied wasnt he? Didnt he give the green signal to prosecute?
Of course, now Razak is out. No need to testify. Its plain – not a prima facie shit against him, ruled the court (not in these words, quite clearly). So Razak is right all along and his wife too was right about him all along. And the judge must be right to have chucked his prosecution out of the window. Is this a case of poorly done homework by the police and badly made decision by the AG? A question I cant resist posing.
Although the mongolian model is not about to raise from where she now lie with this piece of news, I believe she might have stirred around a bit. Can we blame her or those pieces of her? The thought of he/they who is/are responsible is/are still about would stir sensible soul. Somewhere out there, he still lurks.
But what about the two who must now defend themselves. Lets see what would happen to them. I have something to say but must refrain for that would be an interference with the ongoing prosecution of the two. In a more fanciful term, the case is sub judice.
Jeffrey,
If you are the affiant, you make declarations on paper and signed and sworn etc. Yes, declarations are what they are. It does not matter first, second and what the purpose was when you made them. Their truth will have to be examined. If you are the accused making these declarations, you will have to be examined in open court and cross examined as to their truth and accuracy.
That can only happen when you are called to enter your defense. Here the judge basing on your affidavit or affidavits you filed for whatever purpose, ruled you have no case to answer and need not make your defense. I’m struggling to understand why!
# undergrad2 Says:
Today at 08: 42.15 (57 minutes ago)
“Do you understand the quote unquote X-File? Then again, my comment is not for you to understand. My suggestion to you …” Jamesy
Is that all you have to say?? That’s pathetic!
———————————————————-
Not as pathetic as you for your pathetic comment on others without seeking elaboration!
We have heard the testimonies of the different witnesses both for the prosecution and the defense. Some made inconsistent statements and attempts were made to impeach them and throw out their entire testimonies. These failed. We heard testimonies from key witnesses. They were examined and cross examined by counsel. Enough issues have been raised and doubts cast. Now we need to hear from the accused what he has got to say.
The judge’s ruling has prevented us from hearing directly from the accused. Should the accused decide to remain silent and not take the witness stand then we are entitled to ask why.
We all knew that Baginda will not be charged. But with all the written and implied accusations against DPM, why isn’t he called for questioning. Is he above the law? Looks that way.
1) Why was Altantuya’s cousin witness testimony expunged?
2) Who erased the immigration records?
3) Who has authority to take C4 from the armoury?
4) The accused were DPM’s body guards?
5) It was the UTK’s chief testimony that these guys don’t act without orders. Who’s giving the orders?
With these questions hanging unanswered, how is it possible under any criminal court that the DPM is not called to the witness stand.
“Yes, declarations are what they are. It does not matter first, second and what the purpose was when you made them. Their truth will have to be examined. If you are the accused making these declarations, you will have to be examined in open court and cross examined as to their truth and accuracy.”
I have not followed the trial closely as reported in newspapers when it was going on. Hopwever from secondary report of The Malaysian Insider, and even Mainstream papers as far as the reportage of verdict is concerned, and its basis, it seems that Prosecution has failed to cross-examine the first affidavit of Baginda (tendered for bail) which contents unrebutted/uncontradicted, according to judge, exculpated him. What can be expected done of Prosecution proceeded another direction and did not focus on or seek to cross examine the first Affidavit?
Ooops – “…What can be expected done IF Prosecution proceeded another direction ….”
Jeffrey posted:
`as if this kind of accusations – which, according to Obama, was drawn only from his having lived, when young, in Indonesia, and once attended a school that was mostly Muslims for a few years – and which even the McCain camp dissociates from, could rightfully be compared and treated at the same level and accorded the same serious concerns as that of Altantuya’s murder case, with all its shortcomings in investigations relating to it.
When one uses a grape to compare with durian as basis of argument, no meaningful exchange can be expected to ensue from trying to respond to such an argument.’
Maybe you should try to re-read my post and improve your command of English! I never used Obama’s case as a basis of my argument. Rather it was meant to be an example of how people can smear someone’s name even when there is no proof whatsoever!!
I will repeat a part of my earlier post again for your sake. Try to re-read it slower this time please so that you may understand:
The presence of rumours and hearsays are not sufficient to call for such an inquiry. I would agree to such an inquiry if there are based on strong evidences. But to this day, are there any? Seriously I ask you, are there any?
“….it seems that Prosecution has failed to cross-examine the first affidavit …” Jeffrey QC
I didn’t know about that or the details; and media reports on the proceedings are from the distant past!
But it would appear that based on the failure of the prosecution (it must be one heck of a team not to do it) to cross examine the affiant on the contents of the affidavit, it translates somehow to insufficient evidence to make up a prima facie case.
What about the testimonies given by the various witnesses? Have they not raised issues, doubts enough to make up a prima facie case against him?? I should think so.
“…Prosecution has failed to cross-examine the first affidavit of Baginda (tendered for bail) which contents unrebutted/uncontradicted, according to judge, exculpated him.” Jeffrey
Exculpate the accused? That’s one hell of a stretch by any definition!
imranj78, well I am here to argue about your better command of English but command of understanding : if you think that public disquiet about Altantuya’s case is just about rumours and hearsays of a smearing nature, then I think you do not really know much about the entire situation including anomalies relating to investigation of this case (right from the beginning) and what has just been discussed in this blog thread about the court judgment….
“….well I am NOT here to argue about …”
“So Razak is right all along and his wife too was right about him all along. And the judge must be right to have chucked his prosecution out of the window. Is this a case of poorly done homework by the police and badly made decision by the AG? A question I cant resist posing.” taiking
The AG receives the dossier, the results of the police investigation into the role played by Baginda, reads it, makes some enquiries and after consulting the opinions of his subordinates decides if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. If he feels there is enough evidence to proceed to prosecution, he may or may not refer to the Home Minister or the PM or whoever his political masters are that he takes his instruction from. He has to feel comfortable with the evidence available. There must be enough evidence to make up what lawyers call a prima facie case against the accused. If there is insufficient evidence he may send it back to the police so that more could be gathered. But to prosecute based on insufficient evidence would not only be a waste of tax payer money but subsequent prosecution would fall foul of the rule against double jeopardy.
The rule to remember is that our system of justice is an adversarial one. There is the presumption of innocence which means if you allege you must prove and failure to show a prima facie case against the accused would result in his acquittal. Baginda is free to walk and it would appear it is because the prosecution team has bungled the job! It does not mean he is innocent of the crime he was charged with. It does not mean he has been found ‘not guilty’. It merely means there is insufficient evidence presented and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused because of the presumption of innocence referred to earlier. He could still be hauled to face trial for abetment to murder if fresh evidence not available at the time surfaces later.
imranj78, what you have done is to try bring the Altantuya’s case to same level as Obama’s by saying both are are smeared by rumours/hearsays, mocking LKS call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) as if his call proceeds only on basis of rumours/hearsays (as defined by you), which is NOT the case because (1) the circumstances surrounding these so called rumours/hearsay eg Bala SD1 & 23 are not exactly the same stature as rumours of Obama being a muslim and (2) LKS’s call for RCI is based not just on the alleged rumours and hearsay of Bala/RPK but wider considerations of the perceived anomalies in the conduct of investigations and court case in striking departure from the ordinary.
It seems to me that you have selectively defined LKS’s call being based on narrower parameters that what they really are and used your own d efinition of the narrow parameters to discredit his call, which essentially shows either:
1. you lack understanding or knowledge of the bigger picture of the existence of anomalies stated; or
2. deliberately choose to ignore these, and to define LKS’s call as being based on narrow parameters of rumours/hearsays just so to discredit his call, engaging in what is esentialy a dishonest argument, which of course is easier facilitated by your unsual better command odf English….. :)
Toyol Says:
Yesterday at 10: 12.14
We all knew that Baginda will not be charged. But with all the written and implied accusations against DPM, why isn’t he called for questioning.”
But Baginda was charged – and was free to walk because the prosecution did a botch job!
DPM is not on trial and could only be called to testify as a witness if relevant issues arise during the court proceedings and his testimony in court is relevant to collaborate the testimony or testimonies given by other witnesses or to rebut those given.
Apparently if Baginda had been called to make his defense, DPM would likely be called as a witness by either side and if he lies on the stand it would be perjury. That was what we all had hoped to happen. It didn’t and no one was surprised. If the trial of the alleged co-conspirators were to end in a ‘not guilty’ verdict, any appeal would be on issues of law and not fact.
We want to know what the DPM knows and it looks like we are never going to know now.
He could still be called though
Razak Baginda’s trial is not the only trial in town having anything to do with Altantuya Shaariibuu.
If LKS calls for a RCI based on reasons (say) a, b,c, d and e in combination, and a detractor of his frames/defines his reason for calling so as being based (narrowly) on only (say) reason (a) [ie rumours/hearsay] without taking into consideration the balance of total considerations b, c, d and e taken into consideration and proceed further to ridicule reason a. as being a sufficient justification by pointing out by comparison another example (rumours pertaining to Obama) where no RCI was called or it would be ridiculous to do so by reason of a. alone, what has such a detractor done?
He has committed unwittingly (in such a case, an act of lack of understanding) or deliberately (in this case an act of dishonest argument) committed more than one facllacies of reasoning and argument…….
1st fallacy is that of Framing — by using a too narrow approach or description of the situation or issue in order to draw a different conclusion based on the narrower premises presented.
This variation of this kind of fallacy is sometimes called “contextomy,” a practice of “quoting out of context”, sometimes also referred to false attribution in which a other parts supporting an argument are not taken into consideration and severed from its surrounding context in such a way as to deliberately distort its intended purport.
Quoting out of context is often a means to set up what is called “straw man” arguments. Straw man arguments are arguments against a position which is not actually held by an opponent (LKS), but which may be attributed to him and ridiculed by reason of it bearing superficial similarity to another instance of Obama’s case where the attribution on narrower premises (just rumours/hearsays) is justifiably discredited for calling a RCI.
The 2nd fallacy is assuming that something (as in a rumour/hearsay) is necessarily true/false because it has not yet been proven false/true or prevented from being proven true/false.
There are other fallacies : but I shall stop here for the time being….
Fallacy or fellatio??
Despite “judgment” being passed by our newly appointed Chief Justice on the two accused police personnel involved in the case, on just a “prima facie” case against them, many question are still unanswered as far as the murder case of Altantuya is concerned.
Who actually killed her and how?
Who ordered her to be killed?
Do these two police personnel have any personal interest which necessitated the killing?
Where did they get the C4?
Who erased the immigration records of the victim?
Who had the power to obtain C4 from the army artillery department?
Did the storekeeper at the army artillery department keep proper records on the amount of C4 stored?
If the erasure of the immigration records has been accepted, which means Altantuya was NEVER in Malaysia, then how did she get killed in Malaysia and her body blown to bits and pieces?
Did all these questions never cross the minds of the prosecution, the defence and the presiding judge? If all these points weren’t included in arriving at the judgment, then what were the criteria for the judge’s decision in acquitting the key accused?
And what sort of court and judge do we have where the accused can wrap himself up like a mummy when being presented in court. How the hell is anyone, whether the judge, the prosecution or the defence is going to know that the one in the dock is actually the one whose guilt is to be determined? And even if the death sentence is passed eventually on them, who the hell can be sure the two hanged are actually the two criminals who stood trial for the 100+ days? Right from Day#1, no one has seen their faces, so I bet even the EXECUTIONER who finally carries out the hanging cannot be SURE that he is hanging the right people!!!!
By “mummifying” themselves, these two accused have actually committed “contempt of court”! Why didn’t the presiding judge say anything?