The following articles capture the gists of the serious issues related to this case of two statutory declaration made by the same person with contradictory content within a period of two days.
A Malaysian Private Eye Recants an Explosive Statement Asia Sentinel - 04 July 2008 Complete reversal on charges against Malaysia's deputy prime minister raises questions of political pressure In a stunning turnaround that raises as many questions as it answers, the Kuala Lumpur-based private investigator who set off a firestorm Thursday by alleging that Deputy prime Minister Najib Tun Razak was involved in the 2006 murder of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu today retracted the entire contents of his statutory declaration and said he had made it under duress (Note: Both declarations can be found here). Media in Kuala Lumpur reported that P. Balasubramaniam, a private investigator who once represented accused murderer Abdul Razak Baginda, said everything he had alleged in his July 1 statutory declaration was wrong, then rushed off without taking questions. Local media also reported that he had come under severe pressure after releasing the declaration in the company of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim Thursday. The investigator did not say who pressured him to issue the initial statement, but his action raised the inevitable specter that powerful political forces are at work over the sensational murder. The allegations against Najib have already undermined his standing as the heir apparent to the leadership of the powerful United Malays National Organization. The prominent Internet journalist Raja Petra Kamaruddin in his own statutory declaration recently flatly stated that Najib's wife had been present at Altantuya's execution. Raja Petra now faces charges of sedition and is scheduled to go on trial in October. Opposition leaders denounced the retraction as the result of political pressure and called for an investigation. To Balasubramaniam's assertion that he had been pressured into making the original statement, they pointed out that he was in the company of his own lawyer, Americk Singh Sidhu, when he made the statement public to reporters. The respected independent reform organization Aliran issued a statement questioning the reversal and said that an assistant superintendant of police had met with Balasubramaniam at the Brickfields police station in Kuala Lumpur the night after he made his first statement, and that his second was witnessed by a commissioner of oaths named Zainul Abidin Muhayat from an address of the law firm Zul Rafique and Partners, reportedly owned by the brother of Federal Territories Minister, Zulhasnan Rafique. The minister is a top UMNO wheelhorse. The ongoing trial has thus far avoided questioning Najib or bringing his name into the proceedings, with both prosecutors and defense attorneys challenging attempts to have him brought into the proceedings. Given the assertions by Raja Petra and Balasubramaniam it seems almost inconceivable that the High Court hearing the case would not reopen it to attempt to get at the truth. Anwar, who himself faces recent allegations of forcibly sodomizing a 23-year-old man who works in his office, was excoriated by pro-government loyalists from the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition led by UMNO after he released the initial declaration. Najib and Anwar are bitter rivals for power who were once allied in UMNO before Anwar was booted out of the deputy prime minister’s job in 1998 and later jailed on sexual perversion charges. Building on opposition gains in the March elections, Anwar has declared his intention to unseat the BN by September. Najib called the private investigator’s statement “a desperate move by Anwar Ibrahim to divert attention from the sodomy allegation he is facing.” For some, the episode reveals rot inside the political system. “They are all damaged, it doesn’t matter, really,” said a disgusted lawyer and political insider in Kuala Lumpur. “I think new leaders will emerge after this mess.” In the new declaration, a sworn statement made in writing as was his first, Balasubramaniam said: "I wish to retract the entire contents of my statutory declaration dated July 1, 2008. I was compelled to affirm the said statutory declaration under duress. "I wish to expressly state that at no material time did (Abdul) Razak (Abdullah) Baginda inform me that he was introduced to Altantuya Shaariibuu by a VIP and at no material time did Razak Baginda inform me that Datuk Seri Najib (Tun Razak) had a sexual relationship with Altantuya Shaaribu and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse. At no material time did Razak Baginda inform me that Datuk Seri Najib instructed Razak Baginda to look after Altantuya Shaaribu as he did not want her to harass him since he was the Deputy Prime Minister." Balasubramaniam’s previous statement was extraordinarily detailed, accusing the deputy prime minister of having had an affair with Altantuya and introducing her to Razak; he also recounted SMS conversations between Razak and Najib on the night of her murder. The statement described the cars that came to take the woman away, related conversations with the accused and described his disappointment at the fact that a detailed statement he had given police about the matter had been censored so completely that nothing of the relationship between Razak and Najib survived. Razak went on trial in June 2007 for Altantuya’s murder along with two of Najib’s bodyguards, Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar of the elite Unit Tindak Khas or Special Police Action Unit. The 28-year-old Mongolian woman was shot twice in the head on October 19, 2006 and her body dumped in a patch of jungle near the suburban city of Shah Alam before she was blown up with explosives. Balasubramaniam wrote in his first declaration that he wanted the “relevant authorities to reopen their investigations into this case immediately so that any fresh evidence may be presented to the Court prior to submissions at the end of the prosecution’s case.” In that declaration Balasubramaniam, who was hired to help Razak deal with the woman, said he repeatedly tried to get Razak to have Altantuya arrested for harassment, but that he refused to do so. The July 1 statement described in meticulous detail a series of visits by Altantuya and two friends from Mongolia to Razak’s office and home, seeking to corner the political analyst about their relationship and demanding US$500,000 for her services as a translator in a questionable transaction involving Malaysia’s purchase of French submarines. The document also purported to confirm long-reported rumors that Najib, Razak and Altantuya had been at a dinner in Paris during the time when the submarine transaction was being negotiated. It described conversations with Altantuya, in which she told the private investigator that Razak had even bought her a house in Mongolia. ...Asia Sentinel |
Why Balasubramaniam's First Declaration Is Still Significant Disquiet - July 4, 2008 P Balasubramaniam has made an about turn and released a new statutory declaration. From media reports, it appears that he claims that those parts of his original Statutory Declaration that pertained to the Deputy Prime Minister were made under duress. He has not been forthcoming with particulars of his purported duress. This is unfortunate as it raises many questions that the Malaysian public is deserving of answers to. As I understand it, the inflicting of duress in law requires the subjecting of a person to the kind of treatment that would leave that person with no doubt that he or someone close to him would be in grave danger, life and limb, unless that person cooperated with the person inflicting duress. Is Balasubramaniam saying that representatives of Keadilan inflicted duress or that his previous lawyer did? We cannot overlook the statement given by Anwar Ibrahim at the same press conference yesterday in he explained how Balasubramaniam had come to make the Statutory Declaration. From this perspective, the accusation of duress is not a trivial one as it carries grave implications and consequences. In the same vein, if in fact the police were in contact with Balasubramaniam yesterday, after the press conference at which he released his original (and now retracted) Statutory Declaration as the media suggests, the police should also make it clear to the rakyat what it is that transpired, if only to clear up any doubt as to the circumstances in which Balasubramaniam retracted his original statement. I say this because the original Statutory Declaration was itself of grave importance and carried with serious implications. I have noted that some writers have been quick to question or dismiss the value of the original Statutory Declaration for it allegedly being hearsay, or put another way, containing only second hand information not directly within the knowledge of Balasubramaniam. I do not share this view. Allow me to explain why. The law requires direct evidence of a fact. Second-hand knowledge is considered to be unreliable. However it does not follow that ‘hearsay’ evidence is not admissible or irrelevant in all cases. Evidence is multi-faceted and is never merely proof of one fact. Considered from different angles, a single piece of evidence may tell more than one story. For example, A tells B that A had stolen some money. B then tells C. C’s evidence of the conversation is not admissible as an admission by A or as proof of theft. Put another way, A could not be convicted purely on the say so of C. Evidence of A having committed the theft would have to be put before the court, in one form or the other. This is the essence of the hearsay rule. However, this does not mean that the fact of B telling C is of no relevance. The fact is that A and B had that conversation and though C’s evidence may not be able to establish the truth of what was told to him by B, it can establish that such a conversation took place. The law permits this. If admitted, such evidence could be considered as ‘circumstantial evidence’. Seen in this light, it is clear that the original Statutory Declaration was of great significance. In it Balasubramaniam categorically stated that he gave information to the police about the conversations he had had with Razak Baginda and Altantuya AND that such information was excluded from his statement AND that the Prosecution did not ask him any questions about this aspect of the information he gave to the police. These pieces of evidence were not hearsay as they were matters directly within the knowledge of Balasubramaniam. They were also manifestly relevant. Additionally, for the reasons explained above, the fact of the conversations between Balasubramaniam and Razak Baginda and Altantuya respectively were also of relevance for equally suggesting an alternative or additional line of enquiry that the police ought to have looked into but apparently did not. The about-turn and the possible, though as yet uncertain, involvement of the police do not do any good for the already seriously undermined confidence of the rakyat in the justice system. We deserve better. ...Disquiet |
Was Bala’s second declaration made under duress? 04 July 2008 - Aliran Aliran views private investigator P Balasubramaniam’s two contradictory statutory declarations with shock and concern. It is difficult to believe that he could have retracted his earlier statutory declaration dated July 1, which implicates and condemns the Deputy Prime Minister’s involvement with Altantuya Shaaribuu, within a matter of three days. His latest statutory declaration dated July 4 retracts every thing that he had solemnly sworn “consciously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960.” When he disclosed the contents of his first statutory declaration at the press conference on July 3, he was in the presence of his lawyer, Americk Singh Sidhu. His lawyer even clarified that Balasubramaniam made the statutory declaration because the prosecution had wrapped up their case against Abdul Razak Baginda without raising his revelation to them in the course of the trial. What he had revealed to the police implicated Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak. According to Americk, Balasubramaiam wanted to bring to light the available evidence and tell the police and the prosecution that the private eye was at their disposal at any time. Up to this point there was no mention of any coercion or duress from any quarter that compelled the former police officer to appear at the press conference. We could only observe the voluntary nature of his conduct and it did not go unnoticed that he was at the press conference as a concerned citizen whose primary duty was to ensure that justice prevailed. But his second statutory declaration retracting his earlier declaration raises all sorts of questions. If the first one was a false declaration as he now claims, how are we to believe that his second one is not another concocted story? How are we to believe that his latest declaration was made freely, voluntarily and not under duress? It also does not go unnoticed that he came up with his retraction this morning after he had gone to Brickfields to meet an ASP yesterday evening, soon after the first press conference. Malaysians would like to know what transpired last night. Was he turned over by their incredible methods of making people “see the light” as was demonstrated by a top police officer during the first Anwar trial? When did the new lawyer, Arulampalam, get involved in this matter? Who recommended this new lawyer? Even Americk is “extremely surprised” at the change of lawyers. His second declaration was affirmed before commissioner of oaths Zainal Abidin Muhayat bearing an address reportedly belonging to law firm Zul Rafique and Partners owned by Federal Territories Minister Zulhasnan Rafique’s brother. This is what makes this sordid affair suspicious and questionable. It is difficult to believe that Balasubramaniam had once again made “this solemn declaration consciously believing the same be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960.” There is reason to believe that there may be an attempt to suppress evidence borne out by these contradictory declarations. There are hands, it seems, at work to derail justice and bury the truth. What has unfolded in this disturbing episode suggest that there are forces bent on subverting our justice system. Malaysians are perturbed by this latest turn of events and are not sure what to believe. Is this part of the script so that his first declaration will be thrown out as evidence coming from an unreliable source? Thinking Malaysians will remain sceptical with regard to the second declaration for very obvious reasons. P Ramakrishnan President 4 July 2008 ...Aliran |
No comments:
Post a Comment