Cops’ convictions in Altantuya murder case should stand, says Putrajaya
Even without the testimony of Datuk Seri Najib Razak's police aide, the Court of Appeal should have upheld the conviction of two police commandos in the high-profile murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu, says the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC).
In its appeal against the acquittal of the cops, the AGC said there was no need to put the prime minister's aide-de-camp, DSP Musa Safri, on the stand as he was only a peripheral figure in the case
.
.
In a petition of appeal filed on January 3 and seen by The Malaysian Insider, the prosecutors listed six reasons the three-man Court of Appeal bench was wrong, in law and facts, to allow the cops to escape the gallows.
The prosecution said even without Musa, the whole narrative of the prosecution’s case was revealed during trial.
The Court of Appeal had ruled on August 23, 2013 that the prosecution's failure to call Musa had weakened Putrajaya's case against the two cops.
Deputy public prosecutor Manoj Kurup said the appeal court had concluded that adverse inference must be drawn for failure to put Musa on the witness stand during prosecution's case.
Manoj said that an affidavit of political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda (pic), in support of obtaining bail, revealed that Musa's role was limited to introducing him (Abdul Razak) to the Brickfields police chief.
"After that, Musa did not have a significant role as a witness. Further, Azilah (Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri) had told the court that any action or decision came from his own initiative," Manoj said in the 10-page petition of appeal.
"Even Sirul (Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar) who gave unsworn statement from the dock had said that Musa was not involved, nor did he give any directive," Manoj said.
Azilah and Sirul walked out free men after their appeal against their High Court convictions was allowed
.
.
The policemen, formerly with the Special Action Unit (UTK), had been found guilty of murdering Altantuya in 2006.
Razak , who was Altantuya's lover, was acquitted by the High Court in 2009 for abetment without his defence being called.
The prosecution did not appeal his acquittal.
It emerged during trial that Razak, a confidante of Najib, enlisted Musa's help as he could not tolerate the harassment from Altantuya.
Manoj said the second ground was that the Court of Appeal had misdirected
itself when the judges overemphasised the trial judge in his written grounds did not discuss whether the policemen had common intention to commit the murder.
"The Court of Appeal assumed there was no pre-planning by the cops since the trial judge did not make a detailed analysis on the matter," he said.
On the third ground, Manoj said Azilah had given a notice of alibi to show he was not the crime scene, adding that the appellate court had shifted the burden of proof on the prosecution.
itself when the judges overemphasised the trial judge in his written grounds did not discuss whether the policemen had common intention to commit the murder.
"The Court of Appeal assumed there was no pre-planning by the cops since the trial judge did not make a detailed analysis on the matter," he said.
On the third ground, Manoj said Azilah had given a notice of alibi to show he was not the crime scene, adding that the appellate court had shifted the burden of proof on the prosecution.
Azilah's defence was that he was in Bukit Aman and the prosecution's contention was that the defence should have brought witnesses to support the alibi.
Manoj said an entry in a station diary was not conclusive to state that Azilah was in Bukit Aman.
 |
| Imej seorang lelaki berkemeja T warna putih (kiri) dipercayai Azilah, sementara lelaki berbaju T kuning dipercayai Sirul Azhar berlegar-legar di kawasan lobi hotel seperti dirakam CCTV. |
On the fourth ground, Manoj said the appellate court had also erred in rejecting the reliability and accuracy of the call logs and coverage prediction provided by a witness from a mobile phone company.
In the High Court, the prosecution produced a date sheet to show Azilah’s movements on the night of the murder.
However, the defence contended this evidence ought to be rejected on the grounds it was altered or tampered with, thereby questioning the authenticity of the data.
The fifth ground touched on information given by the accused that led to police recovering Altantuya’s personal items and the exact location where the crime took place.
The prosecution contended the information was voluntarily given by both accused while the defence took the view the police had prior knowledge, and escorting Azilah an Sirul to the crime scene, was a mere "drama".
Manoj said the sixth ground was that the appellate court did not consider that Sirul had possession and control of the C4 explosives which he could have obtained after training.
He said circumstantial evidence together with a pathologist’s report stating that the victim's death was "blast related" proved that Sirul had possession of the explosives.
Datuk Hazman Ahmad, the lead counsel appearing for Sirul, said the apex court would hold a case management to fix the appeal hearing date.
In order to ensure a speedy disposal of cases in the Federal Court, Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria had said criminal appeals would be heard three months after a complete appeal record was received.
Azilah and Sirul were charged with the murder of Altantuya at Mukim Bukit Raja in Shah Alam between 10pm on October 19, and 1am on October 20, 2006, while Abdul Razak was charged with abetment.
Abdul Razak was acquitted by the High Court in October 2008 after the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against him.
Six months later, Azilah and Sirul were convicted and sentenced to death but on August 23, 2009, the Court of Appeal allowed their appeal and set them free because of a lack of evidence. – January 11, 2014.
