Tuesday, November 28, 2023

Investigate NOW Allegations of Existence of Person Who Ordered/Paid for Altantuya Shaariibuu’s Murder, and who paid for Sirul Azhar’s silence(MADPET)

 

Media Statement – 29/11/2023

Investigate NOW Allegations of Existence of Person Who Ordered/Paid for Altantuya Shaariibuu’s Murder, and who paid for Sirul Azhar’s silence

Do not sweep under the carpet – Reveal The Truth Without Fear or Favour

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) calls for prosecution and higher penalties for person/s that ordered or paid another to kill or murder. This is abuse of power and wealth.

Merely prosecuting actual murderers/killers or criminals is not enough noting that there may be occasions where the murder/crime was committed by person/s by reason of having to follow orders of another or being paid by another to commit specific crimes.

Until the abolition of the mandatory death penalty, the accused killer gains nothing by disclosing accomplices or information about people who ordered or paid for the killing, as it does not change the fact that they are still guilty of the crime of murder and would be sentenced to death.

Even the disclosure that they were ordered or paid by another will not reduce the sentence, as there is no possibility of this fact mitigating one’s sentence by reason of providing assistance to the authorities that will identify help identify or prosecute accomplices, including those that gave the order to kill or paid the accused to kill. The fact that they killed means they will be sentenced to death.

Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty – Expose of One Who Orders/Pays May Mitigate Sentence

However, today, after The Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 came into force on 4/7/2023, Section 302 Penal Code which provides for the crime of murder now reads, ‘Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for a term of not less than thirty years but not exceeding forty years and if not sentenced to death, shall also be punished with whipping of not less than twelve strokes.’ Now, that there is an alternative sentence other than death, hence the ability of the court to consider mitigation is restored.

The disclosure of the fact that one was paid by another to kill, or ordered by another to kill is still no guarantee that the court will still not impose the death penalty, given the fact that the accused did indeed kill.

Most lawyers will reasonably advise clients in criminal cases to remain silent, unless the evidence they give will exonerate them from the crime totally. Naturally, this would be the position taken at the court of first instance right until all the 2 appeals are exhausted. Even after that, silence could be secured by threats or even payments of monies.

Sirul Azhar’s ‘Expose’ Must Be Investigated

On 24/11/2023, Sirul Azhar Umar appeared in an Al Jazeera program, where he admitted to being involved in the kidnapping of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu, but denied killing her. He said he was acting on orders. He also claimed that the evidence was planted against him.

‘…He also alleged that says he received RM1mil from unnamed sources for his silence on the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder during his detention in Australia. He said a prominent politically-linked lawyer and a top Cabinet leader were involved in the payment…’(Star, 24/11/2023)

On 24/11/2023, Lawyer Datuk Hasnal Rezua Merican, now also a Malaysian Human Rights Commissioner and a recent UMNO-BN candidate in recent State elections, denied Sirul Azhar Umar's claims that he instructed the former police commando to make a video exonerating a top leader of any involvement in the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu.  (Star, 24/11/2023).

We must recall also that Azilah, the other person convicted of Altantuya’s murder, also did previously release a damning Statutory Declaration (SD) from Kajang Prison implicating Najib. (Malay Mail, 17/12/2019)

Police Must Investigate – Not Simply Say ‘Unfounded’

Thus, MADPET finds it appalling that the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) regarded the statement by former police commando Sirul Azhar Umar in an interview with an international media regarding his conviction in the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu in 2009 as unfounded and could create more speculation. Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Razarudin Husain said Sirul Azhar had been given the opportunity to defend himself in line with Malaysian laws and constitution. “However, his (Sirul Azhar) claims were never submitted to any court that heard his case, from the High Court to the Federal Court. (25/11/2023, Malay Mail).

Sadly, this statement by the Inspector General of Police is wrong. It must be independently investigated, where the police must make a police report to commence investigation and only after that make any conclusion as to whether it is ‘unfounded’ or not.

MADPET believes that all these allegations must be now thoroughly investigated to determine also whether the two of Najib Razak's former bodyguards really ordered to kill or paid by another to kill, and if so, the said giver of orders or the one who paid for the killing must be investigated and prosecuted to ensure justice be done. Was there a ‘bribe’ for silence, or for the production of some ‘fake’ video?

Can the Police Still Independently Investigate? RCI?

Given the police’s recent response, it may be also be apt to consider setting up an independent Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate this matter. Alternatively, SUHAKAM (the National Human Rights Commission) or maybe even the EAIC ought to enquire into the matter to determine the truth once and for all.

We also recall that current Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim did tell The Australian newspaper the original trial and the judges' ruling was "compromised" and the reluctance of the judges to call relevant witnesses "made a mockery of the law". "The best way is to proffer a new charge and allow for a full hearing of the case," (New Straits Times, 17/5/2018). Hopefully, the fact that Anwar after GE15 needed the Barisan Nasional to form the unity government did not change his position on upholding the cause of justice without fear or favour.

Sirul Azhar Umar and chief inspector Azilah Hadri were both convicted by the High Court in Malaysia in 2009 for the murder of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu in October 2006. Altantuya was shot in the head in 2006 in a forest in Puncak Alam, Selangor. Her body was later blown up with explosives.

Their conviction in the High Court was overturned by the Court of Appeal in 2013. Sirul left for Australia.

In 2015, the Federal Court upheld the High Court’s conviction, and reinstated the death penalty on both men.

The Australian government, who has a policy against deporting anyone to a country where they would face the death penalty, refused to send Sirul back to Malaysia.

Sirul was later apprehended by Australian Immigration in January 2015. Recently, Sirul Azhar was released after spending nine years in immigration custody since 2015. This followed an Australian High Court decision on 8/11/2023, that released about 92 detainees including Sirul Azhar, after deciding that non-citizen detainees who cannot be deported cannot be held indefinitely by immigration authorities, and were allowed to stay in Australia under specific conditions.

MADPET calls for an independent reinvestigation of the Altantuya Shaariibuu’s murder in light of the recent revelations by Sirul Azhar with the object of determining the truth, including as to whether there were other accomplices possibly person/s who ordered the killing or paid another to kill;

MADPET also calls for an investigation into the alleged payment for silence;

MADPET also calls for comprehensive investigation of all murders, to determine whether there were others liable other than the one who committed the crime, as  justice will not be served if some escape justice simply because the police elected to end investigations once the perpetrator committed the crime;

MADPET also calls for higher penalties to be imposed on persons that ordered or paid another to commit crimes, for without such persons the crime would never have been committed. It is an abuse of power or wealth that must never be tolerated.

Charles Hector

For and on behalf of MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

 

 

see the VDO below:-

Murder in Malaysia: World Exclusive Interview with Sirul Azhar Umar

A 101 East world exclusive with a man convicted of Malaysia’s most shocking murder.



I was paid RM1mil to keep my mouth shut, says Sirul 
By R. SEKARAN Nation


Friday, 24 Nov 2023 11:50 AM MYT



PETALING JAYA: Sirul Azhar Umar says he received RM1mil from unnamed sources for his silence on the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder during his detention in Australia.

He said a prominent politically-linked lawyer and a top Cabinet leader were involved in the payment.


In an interview with Al-Jazeera's 101 East programme aired on Friday (Nov 24) morning, the former policeman said he was made a scapegoat and pawn in a political game.


He further claimed he was not responsible for Altantuya's murder despite being convicted for the crime.

"For many years people in my country have been waiting to know who gave the order to kill Altantuya, but I cannot reveal that," he said.

He claimed, however, the order to kill Altantuya was made by a top politician.


"I feel in danger to return (to Malaysia) as I feel it's unsafe and want to build a life with my child here in Australia.

"I love Australia and urge the community here to give me a second chance and accept us," he added.

Sirul also named a well-connected person over links to Altantuya.


He also apologised to Altantuya's family and asked for their forgiveness.

Altantuya was abducted and murdered in Shah Alam in October 2006, and her remains blown up with military-grade explosives.

Sirul and Azilah Hadri, two of former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's bodyguards, were convicted of the murder in 2009.

The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction in 2013 and ordered their release.

During the prosecution's appeal, Sirul fled to Australia. The Federal Court upheld the conviction and reinstated the death penalty.

Former political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, who was charged together with Sirul and Azilah, was freed on Oct 31, 2008, after the court found no concrete evidence against him.

Sirul was arrested and detained by Australian immigration authorities in January 2015 but was not deported owing to the country's policy of not deporting people facing the death penalty.

On Nov 8, the Australian High Court ruled that indefinite immigration detention was unlawful, although the government could impose appropriate visa conditions to protect the local community.

On Dec 16 last year, High Court Judge Datuk Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera (now Court of Appeal judge) allowed the suit by Altantuya's family and ordered former policemen Azilah, Sirul, Abdul Razak, and the Malaysian government to jointly pay RM5mil in general, aggravated and exemplary damages to the family.  - Star, 24/11/2023 

No truth to Sirul's claims, says lawyer


PIC courtesy of – Sinar Harian

PETALING JAYA: Lawyer Datuk Hasnal Rezua Merican has denied Sirul Azhar Umar's claims that he instructed the former police commando to make a video exonerating a top leader of any involvement in the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu.

In an interview with Al Jazeera, Sirul had claimed that his lawyer ordered him to make the video in 2016, where he said former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak had no links to the Mongolian model.

"It is too early to take any action as the allegations were made and circulated in Australia. All I can say for now is that there is absolutely no truth to those allegations," Hasnal told The Star on Friday (Nov 24).

Hasnal, who was Sirul's lawyer, said he had seen parts of the interview.

He also denied Sirul was offered RM1mil to make the video.

In 2016, Sirul took an oath that Najib was in "no way involved" in the murder of Altantuya in 2006.

In 2015, the Federal Court sentenced Sirul and Special Action Unit personnel Azilah Hadri to death for murder. - Star, 24/11/2023

There’s absolutely no truth in Sirul’s claim, says his ex-lawyer

Hasnal Rezua Merican denies paying Sirul Azhar Umar RM1 million to exonerate Najib Razak of links to the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu.

Sirul Azhar Umar is facing the death sentence in Malaysia for the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu. (Al Jazeera pic)

PETALING JAYA: A lawyer has denied all claims made by his former client Sirul Azhar Umar in Australia in an interview with an international TV network.

Hasnal Rezua Merican said this included an allegation that he had paid Sirul RM1 million.

“There is absolutely no truth to all the allegations he has made. I visited Sirul six to seven times during his incarceration in Australia as his lawyer. I can’t recall but the last time I met him may have been in 2017 or 2018.

“It is too early to take any step as the allegations were made and circulated in Australia,” Hasnal told FMT in a WhatsApp message.

Earlier this morning, Aljazeera English’s 101 East programme aired an exclusive interview with Sirul in Canberra, Australia, which was his first since his release two weeks ago.

Former policeman Sirul, who is facing the death sentence in Malaysia for the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu, claimed that he was a scapegoat in the incident and was paid a large sum of money by Hasnul to exonerate former Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak from any link to the brutal murder in 2006.

“(It was) big money in Malaysian ringgit. Around a million ringgit. Yes, I received it,” he said when asked about the sum offered to him.

In addition, Sirul said he did not have to pay for any legal fees in Malaysia as it was “taken care of” but did not give details.

When pressured to divulge the source of the money, he said he did not know.

Sirul also said his superior Azilah Hadri told him that the move to arrest Altantuya was a special operation.

“I joined the police (when I was) 19 years old. It taught me tough discipline, about obeying superiors, which means (saying) yes sir, yes sir, and never say no,” he said in the episode.

He said Malaysians had been asking who gave the order to kill Altantuya but he was not able to tell until now.

When pressed on what exactly Azilah told him, he said his superior told him that a girl was disturbing Razak Baginda, a political analyst.

“I didn’t murder (Altantuya). But I was involved. I took her from Razak’s house alive. And then I handed her over to Azilah and did nothing after that,” he said, adding that he was just a sergeant then and had a chief inspector (Azilah) above him.

Australia would not deport Sirul to Malaysia as the country’s laws do not allow all those facing the death sentence to be repatriated to their countries of origin.

Altantuya was shot in the head in 2006 in a forest in Puncak Alam, Selangor. Her body was later blown up with explosives.

Sirul and Azilah were convicted in 2009 by the High Court of killing Altantuya, who was described as an interpreter. Azilah is currently on death row at Kajang prison.

They succeeded in overturning their conviction at the Court of Appeal in 2013, but the Federal Court in 2015 restored their conviction and sentenced them to death.

Sirul fled to Australia before the final verdict.

He had been held at the detention centre since 2015 after being detained by Australian police. His first application for political asylum in Australia was rejected in 2019. - FMT, 24/11/2023

 

Altantuya case: Sirul should face new trial, says Anwar

SYDNEY: A man who fled Malaysia after being sentenced to hang for the killing of a Mongolian model, in a scandal linked to his country's ousted government, should face a new trial, political leader Anwar Ibrahim reportedly said Thursday.

Former Malaysian police officer Sirul Azhar Umar, who is now in Australian custody, has claimed he was ordered by "important people" to murder Altantuya Shaariibuu in 2006.

Altantuya was the lover of Abdul Razak Baginda – a former close associate of now deposed Malaysian premier Najib Razak – who was accused of arranging kickbacks for the purchase of French submarines in 2002.

Opponents of Najib's government have long alleged that Sirul and accomplice Azilah Hadri, members of an elite unit that guards top Malaysian ministers, were scapegoats in the killing to hide the involvement of their masters at the highest levels of government.

Sirul has previously threatened to reveal who gave the order.

Reformist politician Anwar, who was released from prison Wednesday after his sodomy conviction was quashed by the king following Najib being toppled, suggested Sirul should be brought back to Malaysia for a fresh trial.

He told The Australian newspaper the original trial and the judges' ruling was "compromised" and the reluctance of the judges to call relevant witnesses "made a mockery of the law".

"The best way is to proffer a new charge and allow for a full hearing of the case," he said.

Anwar is the presumptive successor to new Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad following a stunning election upset last week, with his one-time nemesis turned ally vowing to step down in a year or two to make way for him.

Sirul was reportedly detained in Australia in 2015 and has been held in custody since, although Canberra has never officially confirmed this.

A report in the Guardian last week said his bid for a protection visa would be heard within months. Authorities refused to confirm this to AFP or comment on other details of the case.

According to the newspaper, Canberra has allowed Malaysian officials and their middlemen to meet with him regularly, including one from Najib's United Malays National Organisation party's youth wing a fortnight ago.

It cited a source as saying the Malaysian visitor delivered a message to his countryman: "Don't say anything".

The scandal is one of Malaysia's most sensitive topics, with suspicions swirling for years that Altantuya was murdered to keep her quiet about shenanigans in the submarine deal.

Najib has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing over the deal amid allegations that French submarine maker DCNS paid "commissions" of more than 114 million euros (US$142 million) for two Scorpene submarines, which Malaysian critics allege were kickbacks.

Altantuya, 28, was shot dead and her body blown up with military-grade plastic explosives outside Kuala Lumpur.

Sirul and Azilah were convicted in 2009 and sentenced to hang. They were later released when an appeals court overturned the conviction in 2013 after raising questions about how their trial was conducted.

But Malaysia's highest court upheld their death sentences in 2015. Sirul fled the country ahead of that ruling. - NST, 17/5/2018

 

Azilah's murder claim a bid to escape gallows?

KUALA LUMPUR: Is the latest “explosive” revelation on Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s involvement in Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu’s murder the last ditch, desperate attempt by a murderer to escape the hangman’s noose?

The evidence leading to the conviction and death sentence of the accused, former chief inspector Azilah Hadri and former corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, has all been revealed and the trial went through all stages right up to the Federal Court.

Azilah, who was a member of the police’s elite Special Actions Unit (UTK), is asking the Federal Court to review its decision to convict him and Sirul.

The case management of the application has been fixed for today.

Sirul has since fled to Australia while Azilah is languishing in the Kajang prison, waiting to be executed.

Another co-accused, Najib’s associate, Abdul Razak Baginda — was originally convicted but later acquitted and is now a free man.

Azilah and Sirul, who were with UTK, were assigned to Najib’s security detail at that time.

The case captivated the world’s attention then and is still talked about 13 years on.

This is because despite the conclusion of the trial, the motive of the murder has remained a point of contention.

During the course of the trial, the late Karpal Singh, who was holding a watching brief for the victim’s family, had filed a notice of motion to call several witnesses.

One of them included Najib, who Karpal wanted to be called to testify in the trial.

Najib’s testimony, he argued, could introduce fresh evidence to the case.

However, the petition notice was rejected by the High Court after the judge ruled that “only the parties involved, namely the prosecution and the defence” had a right to submit the petition.

Another interesting point during the trial was when Sirul, on Feb 3, 2009, pleaded with the court not to pass the death sentence on him.

Altantuya Shaariibuu’s father Dr Shaariibuu Setev refuses to let go of the case and says there is more to his daughter’s murder than what had been revealed during the trial. -NSTP/File pic
Altantuya Shaariibuu’s father Dr Shaariibuu Setev refuses to let go of the case and says there is more to his daughter’s murder than what had been revealed during the trial. -NSTP/File pic

He claimed that he was like “a black sheep that has to be sacrificed” to protect unnamed people who had never been brought to court or faced questioning.

“I have no reason to cause hurt, what more to take the life of the victim in such a cruel manner.

“I appeal to the court, which has the power to determine if I live or die, not to sentence me so as to fulfil others’ plans for me,” he was quoted as saying.

On April 9, 2009, High Court judge Zaki Yasin ruled that Sirul’s and Azilah’s statements were “unbelievable” as both of the accused only blamed each other.

Both policemen were sentenced to death for the murder of Altantuya at the end of the 159-day trial.

Zaki said both of them failed to raise any reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case.

It was reported that Sirul and Azilah showed no emotion when they heard that they would be hanged.

They were, however, acquitted on Aug 23, 2013 by the Court of Appeal.

Several reasons were given for the acquittal, such as the failure of the prosecution to provide a strong motive for the two men to murder the victim and the prosecution’s failure to call for the cross-examination of Najib’s aide, Musa Safri, and the Pekan member of parliament himself.

The prosecution later appealed the decision and the Federal Court overturned the acquittal of both individuals on Jan 13, 2015.

Both were found guilty of murder and again sentenced to death.

However, Sirul did not show up during the appeal hearing and it was later discovered that he had fled to Australia.

The government had since made an extradition request to get him back, but this has been refused by Australia due to its policy of not extraditing individuals to countries which have the death penalty.

Sirul is now detained by Australian Immigration authorities in Brisbane, Queensland.

Altantuya’s father, Dr Shaariibuu Setev, refused to let go of the case and said there was more to his daughter’s murder than what had been revealed during the trial.

He said the motive of the murder needed to be investigated and the person who ordered the killing must be brought to justice. - NST, 17/12/2019

Sirul Azhar released from Australian immigration detention centre

KUALA LUMPUR: Former police officer Sirul Azhar Umar, convicted of the murder of Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu in 2006, has been released from the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre in Sydney, Australia, yesterday.

According to Australian newspaper The Sydney Morning Herald, Sirul Azhar was released after spending nine years in immigration custody since 2015.

His release follows the country's High Court decision on Nov 8, stating that non-citizen detainees who cannot be deported cannot be held indefinitely by immigration authorities.

Following this decision, 92 individuals, mostly refugees, including others convicted of violent crimes, were released and allowed to stay in Australia under specific conditions.

As reported by the media outlet, the news of Sirul Azhar's release was confirmed by his son, Shukri Azam, currently residing in Australia.

"He is now with me, and I am handling all matters on his behalf," he said, quoting The Sydney Morning Herald's report.

On May 3, BH reported that Shukri Azam appealed to the Australian government to reconsider their political asylum request after the initial application was rejected in 2019.

Shukri Azam, 23, stated that he and his father have no plans to return to Malaysia, even though the mandatory death penalty for serious crimes, including murder, has been abolished.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported that Shukri Azam, who was six years old when Altantuya was killed, claimed he feared for his father's life if they were to return to Malaysia.

Shukri Azam was reportedly raised by adoptive parents in Australia after being separated from his mother and has been residing in Australia for nearly ten years.

Altantuya was allegedly involved in a sex scandal with former political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, a close associate of former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who was the Deputy Prime Minister at that time.

The Mongolian national, reported to have played a role as a translator in the submarine sales negotiation process between a French arms supplier, DNS, and the Malaysian government, was murdered by two of Najib's personal bodyguards on October 18, 2006.

Following the incident, two members of the Special Action Unit (UTK), Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar and Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri, were arrested before being charged in the Shah Alam Court for Altantuya's murder in November 2006.

On April 9, 2009, the court sentenced Sirul Azhar and Azilah to death for the murder of Altantuya. However, both filed appeals against their sentences.

In Feb 2012, their appeal hearings took place over three days, and finally, on Aug 23, 2013, the Court of Appeal ordered the release of Azilah and Sirul Azhar.

However, the prosecution filed an appeal against this decision in the Federal Court, and the appeal hearing took place on June 23, 2014.

A five-judge panel of the Federal Court unanimously upheld the death sentences for Azilah and Sirul Azhar after allowing the prosecution's appeal on Jan 13, 2015.

Sirul Azhar left Malaysia while the case was still under appeal and did not return when the Federal Court pronounced the sentence.

He was subsequently detained by Australian authorities, consistent with the country's policy of not repatriating individuals facing the death penalty in their home country. - NST, 12/11/2023

 

Sirul’s claims unfounded and can create speculation, says IGP


facebook sharing button
twitter sharing button
whatsapp sharing button
telegram sharing button
linkedin sharing button

KUALA LUMPUR: The police say the interview given by its former commando Sirul Azhar Umar to an international media on his conviction in the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu in 2009 was unfounded and could create more speculation.

Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Razarudin Husain (pic) said Sirul Azhar had been allowed to defend himself per Malaysian laws and constitution.

“However, his (Sirul Azhar) claims were never submitted to any court that heard his case, from the High Court to the Federal Court.

“If he is convinced and feels the need for justice, that there is new evidence, Sirul Azhar or through his lawyer, can make a police report for the authorities to take the necessary action,” he told Bernama.

Razarudin was commenting on Sirul Azhar’s interview broadcast on television recently.

According to Razarudin, Sirul Azhar has not, until now, made any application to review the death sentence imposed on him in line with the Revision of Sentence of Death and Imprisonment for Natural Life (Temporary Jurisdiction of the Federal Court) Act 2023 (Act 847) which gives 90 days from Sept 12 this year for a death penalty offender to apply.

Razarudin said although Malaysia has an extradition agreement with Australia, he cannot be extradited to Malaysia because of the death sentence imposed on him.

“Australia does not recognise the death penalty and also does not impose the death penalty on criminal offenders in the country.”

Razarudi said one of the conditions for an extradition agreement to be implemented is that the offence must have dual criminality.

He said Malaysia has Mutual Legal Assistance with many countries, including Australia, through the Mutual Assistance In Criminal Matters Act (MACMA 2002).

He said the principle of dual criminality also applies to this act. “This means that an offence must be a criminal offence for both countries and also carries the same punishment.”

“The latest legal development in Malaysia only involved abolishing the mandatory death penalty. This means that the death penalty still exists in Malaysia, only that it is no longer mandatory and at the discretion of the court,” he said. - Star, 26/11/2023

COMMENT | Sirul's 'exposé': Will Najib sue the ex-cop?
Mohamed Hanipa Maidin
Published:  Nov 28, 2023 9:30 AM
 
COMMENT | With the latest salvo coming from a convicted felon - Sirul Azhar Umar - in an interview on Al-Jazeera’s 101 East programme, it seems that Malaysia will be tormented by the spectre of Altantuya Shaariibuu for good.

Though Sirul chose not to divulge the alleged mastermind of the Mongolian woman’s murder, he, nonetheless, dropped a devastating bombshell by revealing to Al-Jazeera that there are still ongoing efforts to influence him in order to protect Najib.

Sirul (above) also alleged that his then-superior Azilah Hadri had told him that they were carrying out a “special operation” for Najib.

As expected, such a damning revelation by Sirul has solicited a slew of reactions.

Najib's counsel, Shafee & Co promptly reacted by issuing a statement that their client - Najib - has been conclusively exonerated of any involvement in Altantuya's case.

The lawyer also claimed that such an exoneration has been affirmed by relevant authorities, including investigations restarted post-GE14 (2018) and a reaffirmation by the High Court, Court of Appeal, and ultimately by way of a substantive appeal in the Federal Court.

Former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak

Let me add additional information. In December 2019, Najib also took an oath at a mosque on Friday denying allegations he ordered the 2006 murder of a Mongolian model.

Apparently, the oath-taking ceremony is one of the popular methods in local politics for politicians to seek to clear their names.

We have no idea of Najib’s alleged involvement in such a gruesome murder, thus we are not keen to speculate.

Altantuya Shaariibuu

What we know is that Altantuya was in a romantic relationship with Abdul Razak Baginda, a politically connected defence analyst and an adviser to Najib when he was a defence minister.

Further, it has been public knowledge that in 2002, Razak brokered a US$1.1 billion (RM3 billion) deal for the Defence Ministry to buy two French Scorpene-class submarines and Altantuya allegedly demanded US$500,000 to stay quiet about the alleged corruption in the deal, thus fuelling speculation that this is why she was grotesquely "exterminated".

To be fair to Sirul, apparently, he was not alone in implicating Najib in Altantuya's murder.

Abdul Razak Baginda

The media also reported that on Dec 16, 2018, in his bid for a retrial, Azilah categorically affirmed a statutory declaration (SD) that explicitly implicated Najib in such a heinous crime.

It is not clear why Najib has not instructed his lawyer to file a libel suit against either Azilah for such a damning confession in the SD or Sirul for his latest revelation on Al-Jazeera, assuming such information is proven to be defamatory.

I guess Najib must be extremely concerned about salvaging and honouring his integrity and credibility. Be that as it may, if Najib is serious about protecting his name, suing Azilah and Sirul may be one of the best routes in accomplishing that.

Azilah Hadri

The police also reacted to Sirul's latest closure. It regarded the statement by Sirul - a former commando - in the interview on his conviction in the murder of Altantuya, as unfounded and could create more speculation.

Perhaps the police and Najib's lawyer are right. Sirul was already found guilty by our judicial system. Hence, his purported exoneration via media is not legally proper.

But, is Sirul alone resorting to such a tactic?

When Sirul admitted to taking money for his silence, it would be logical for this convicted murderer not to raise much "new information" during his previous trial.

After all, he is fully aware of what happened to Altantuya when she refused to be silenced.


MOHAMED HANIPA MAIDIN is a former MP and former law minister. He was also a practising lawyer for almost 25 years.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini. - Malaysiakini, 28/11/2023

 

 

 

Wednesday, November 15, 2023

Usage of Sedition Act To ‘Threaten’, Investigate Or Charge People Must End As It can DETER Public Participation Crucial For A Democracy - Repeal Sedition Act 1948

 Media Statement – 16/11/2023

Usage of Sedition Act To ‘Threaten’, Investigate Or Charge People Must End As It can DETER Public Participation Crucial For A Democracy - Repeal Sedition Act 1948

960 cases where persons were investigated using Sedition Act in the last 13 years and only 19 charged, and the rest could still be charged anytime in the future.

The fact that only 19 of the 960 cases investigated under the Sedition Act 1948 (Act 15) between 2010 and September 2023 were charged in court, as disclosed by the Deputy Home Minister Datuk Seri Shamsul Anuar Nasarah on 14/11/2023, does in no way justify the continued existence  of this draconian law that criminalizes ‘seditious tendencies’ that amongst others, creates disaffection with the government of the day or excite disaffection against the administration of justice.

It is an Act that is totally unacceptable in any democracy. Are people meant to simply praise government or be silent, and not be able to say otherwise or anything which may result in a loss of support for Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s Pakatan Harapan-led coalition government? Then, it would be no longer a true democracy but an authoritarian state that wants people to not participate in building a better and more just Malaysia.

Sedition Act Can Suppress Truth, And Is Not Bothered About Intention.

What was your intention when you said or did that caused a ‘seditious tendency’ is irrelevant for offences under Sedition Act. Section 3(3) says, ‘ (3) For the purpose of proving the commission of any offence against this Act the intention of the person charged… shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact the act had, or would, if done, have had, or the words, publication or thing had a seditious tendency.’ Truth or reasonable suspicion is generally not a defence.

For any crime, there must be certainty of what exactly constitutes the elements of the crime, and what was the intention of the criminal when he did what he did that constituted the crime.

A crime should never be VAGUE – and neither should it criminalize difference in opinions, ‘reasonable suspicions’, or the highlighting of wrongs in government or even the administration of justice.

Now, anyone expressed unhappiness with the Public Prosecutor’s decision to suddenly stop the criminal trial of Zahid Hamidi may also be at risk of being investigated or charged under Sedition Act. This yet another reason why the British Colonial government created law in 1948, before independence must be repealed.

960 Cases – Only 19 Charged Raises The Possibility of ABUSE including also to eliminate Dissent

The Deputy Minister talks about ‘960 cases’, which means maybe the number of persons investigated may be much higher. How many of these were arrested and detained during the investigations? How many were tortured or threatened? How many persons income generation ability was affected? Even the calling in to be investigated under Sedition Act is a mental torture.

In 2016, for the tabling of now a Bar Resolution which was adopted by an overwhelming majority entitled ‘Resolution on the Attorney General, Public Prosecutor and Improvement of Public Perspective of Administration of Justice in Malaysia’, the 3 lawyers who moved the Resolution, being Charles Hector, Francis Pereira and Shanmugam a/l Ramasamy and the then Bar Secretary Karen Cheah(now Bar President) were called in for investigation under the Sedition Act. The Resolution, amongst others, raised issues concerning the Attorney General/Public Prosecutor actions in the 1MDB/SRC – demanding an independent Public Prosecutor and needed reforms.

The lawyers investigated remained strong and came out after investigation, and also was reported saying “We are still committed in upholding the cause of justice…. We have the right to seek change so that our country can become better…This is not just the obligations of lawyers, but the duty of each and every one in Malaysia,’(FMT, 31/3/2023).

Investigated – Could Still Be Charged? Sword of Damocles That Undermines Human Rights.

Remember, that at any time, the government has the power to charge anyone from those 960 cases investigated for crimes against Sedition Act, and as such for those still not charged, It is akin to having a sword of Damocles hanging over you/your head, for they can still be charged anytime in the future. you.

There is no limitation for crime, and so anytime one can be charged. No one tells us that the investigation revealed that we were innocent or that we will never be charged in the future, unlike an Acquittal by court, which means that thereafter one shall ‘…not be liable to be tried again for the same offence nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge…’ (Sec. 3012(1) Criminal Procedure Code)

As such, the use of the draconian Sedition Act even for purposes of investigation may be an abuse of powers of the State to, maybe, keep silent critics and those with a different view from the government of the day.

To remedy this defect in a democratic society, the Sedition Act must be repealed, and pending repeal should be not be used anymore.

Is PH-led government no different from the pre GE14 BN regime?

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and this Pakatan-led Coalition government, who earlier promised reforms and even the abolition of the Sedition Act if they came into power should no longer delay, but immediately repeal the Sedition Act, and impose a moratorium on the use of this draconian Act pending abolition.

After GE14, Pakatan Harapan’s ‘excuse’ was before they could repeal bad laws as promised, they were ousted early from government because of the ‘Sheraton Move’. What then will the excuse of PH now that they have a second chance to govern?

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) urges Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and/or the Malaysian government to immediately ‘walk the talk’ about reforms as the people expected, and forthwith repeal Sedition Act 1948.

MADPET also reiterates its call for the repeal of draconian Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 and all other draconian legislations. Like the Sedition Act, Section 233 is vague and easily abused, and in Malaysia, it has been seen to be used together with the Sedition Act on internet users, maybe to prevent alternative views, freedom of expression and even sharing information/views of another with friends over the internet.  

It is hoped that the desire to remain in power does not lead to actions/omissions designed to suppress the democratic rights of the people of Malaysia.

Bad unjust laws must be repealed, and not simply maintained since now one is power, so that it could be, if needed, used or abused against political opponents and ordinary people who do not agree with or support government actions or views.

Charles Hector

For and on behalf of MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) 

See also earlier statement - 

End U-Turns and Apologetics to justify not repealing Sedition Act 1948 and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998

Sedition Act: Action taken in accordance with existing law, says deputy home minister

Sedition Act: Action taken in accordance with existing law, says deputy home minister
Deputy Home Minister Datuk Seri Shamsul Anuar Nasarah says the government will not act arbitrarily against any party, and all actions will be taken in accordance with existing laws. — Bernama pic

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 14 ― The government will not act arbitrarily against any party, and all actions will be taken in accordance with existing laws, said Deputy Home Minister Datuk Seri Shamsul Anuar Nasarah.

According to him, only 19 of the 960 cases investigated under the Sedition Act 1948 (Act 15) between 2010 and September this year were charged in court.

“This shows that we are transparent and do not take action against any party indiscriminately. Actions were taken according to the laws,” he said during the question and answer session in the Dewan Rakyat today.

He said this in reply to a question from Datuk Seri Takiyuddin Hassan (PN-Kota Baru) on the scope and level used by the government to determine whether or not certain issues belong to race, religion and royalty, or 3R issues.

Meanwhile, Shamsul Anuar said 60 out of 104 cases related to 3R had been resolved, while the rest were still being investigated.

Of the total, he said 47 cases involved royal institution, religion (30) and race (27).

However, Shamsul Anuar said the government has no plans to enact laws to be used specifically in 3R cases, as the existing laws were sufficient to deal with the issues. ― Bernama, Malay Mail, 14/11/2023

Lawyers questioned under Sedition Act to keep on talking

Former Bar Council President S Ambiga says unprecedented move to call in lawyers over AGM motion has set a dangerous precedent.

Charles Hector, one of the trio, said the three of them were questioned for about one hour under Section 4 (1) (a) of the Sedition Act about what had transpired at the Malaysian Bar Annual General Meeting on March 19.

This came after a police report was lodged against them.

“We are still committed in upholding the cause of justice.

“Ultimately, our position is that as lawyers and members of the Malaysian Bar, we have the right to uphold justice in Malaysia. We have the right to seek change so that our country can become better.

“This is not just the obligations of lawyers, but the duty of each and everyone in Malaysia,” he told reporters in front of Bukit Aman police headquarters here today.

Charles, along with R. Shanmugam and Francis Pereira, submitted a motion calling for the resignation of Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi Ali, which were passed by the Malaysian Bar during its AGM.

The three entered the police headquarters at 2.40 pm and came out at 3.50 pm.

Some 40 lawyers and activists were present to give support for the three legal practitioners.

They included Malaysian Bar President Steven Thiru, former President S Ambiga, Bersih Chairman Maria Chin Abdullah, DAP Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo and DAP Segambut MP Lim Lip Eng.

Earlier today, Malaysian Bar Secretary Karen Cheah was questioned under the same act at the Malaysian Bar headquarters at 11 am.

She said the four of them were informed of the matter by Bukit Aman last week.

Meanwhile, Ambiga said the unprecedented move to call lawyers over the motion passed at the AGM was “a dangerous precedent” and showed that the government had something to hide.

“What is of great concern is there are no boundaries and they (government) don’t respect the rights of lawyers. They think they can barge into our territory and tell us what to do,” she said.

Meanwhile, Malaysian Bar Vice-President George Varughese said police should agree after the investigation that no offence was committed.

“To question our right to move a motion definitely wouldn’t be right.

“They are merely exercising their statutory right. They should not be questioned unless there is abuse, but I don’t see any abuse here.” - FMT, 31/3/2016

 

Malaysian Bar calls on Mohamed Apandi Ali to immediately resign as Attorney General, for the good of Malaysia..

Malaysian Bar’s 70th Annual General Meeting (“AGM”), held on 19 Mar 2016 at Renaissance Kuala Lumpur Hotel saw the attendance of a  total of 1,110 Members 
 
(A) That the Malaysian Bar calls on Mohamed Apandi Ali to immediately resign as Attorney General, for the good of Malaysia, to restore public confidence and perception of the rule of law, in particular the administration of criminal justice in Malaysia.
 
One of the 5 Resolution that were adopted is as follows:- 

Malaysian Bar Resolution on the Attorney General, Public Prosecutor and Improvement of Public Perspective of Administration of Justice in Malaysia

WHEREAS:

(1) It is important that the Attorney General, who is also the Public Prosecutor, is both independent, and perceived to be independent, especially when it comes to prosecuting persons and entities that have broken Malaysian laws, irrespective of whether they are currently Ministers, holding senior position in public service and/or legal entities owned by the government.

(2) It is the Attorney General, as Public Prosecutor, who is vested with the power to prosecute persons and/or entities that have acted against the laws of Malaysia, including criminal laws. 

(3) Of late, there has been several allegations of corruption and/or other breaches of the law made against Najib Tun Razak, who is also the current Prime Minister of Malaysia and Minister of Finance, in connection with large amounts of monies, amounting to more than RM2 billion, that was found in the personal bank account of Najib Tun Razak.

(4) There have been allegations of wrongdoings with regard to Malaysian government-owned company, 1MDB, SRC International and/or other related companies, where Najib Tun Razak also sits as the Chairman of the Board of Advisors of the said 1MDB.

(5) Investigations have been commenced by the relevant authorities including the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

(6) In the midst of investigations about these alleged offences, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail's services as Attorney-General was suddenly terminated as of about 27/7/2015, and Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali was appointed new Attorney-General effective 27/7/2015.

(7) Our Federal Constitution states that it is ‘on the advice of the Prime Minister’ that the Yang Di-Pertuan Agung appoints the Attorney General. In practice, this means that the Prime Minister decides on the appointment and removal of the Attorney General.

(8) Now, given the fact that this happens when there was an ongoing investigation of Najib Tun Razak personally, and also matters that concern the Minister of Finance, who is also Najib Tun Razak, there are concerns about the appointment of the new Attorney General.

(9) In early December 2015, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak was scheduled to provide an explanation to Parliament about all these allegations. However, he did not do so, apparently on the advice of the Attorney General.

(10) The Malay Mail report dated 3/12/2015 stated, amongst others, that ‘Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was only acting on the Attorney-General’s (AG) advice in declining explaining personally in Parliament the RM2.6 billion donation he received, Datuk Seri Azalina Othman[Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department] said today’…. ‘the federal government made a collective decision to issue a ministerial statement in their response to questions after AG Tan Sri Apandi Ali said Najib may be risking “subjudice” if he attempted to answer in person with investigations into the surrounding controversy still ongoing. “The AG is the government's lawyer. We are guided by his advice.”

(11) The Attorney General, whilst also acting as Public Prosecutor involved in the on-going investigation which may lead to the prosecution of Najib Tun Razak, Government of Malaysia, Government-Owned Companies and/or GLCs, should not also be providing legal advice to those being investigated?

(12) The results of the investigations of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) was submitted to the Public Prosecutor to consider commencement of trial, but as reported on 26/1/2016 in News Straits Times which stated amongst others, ‘Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali said their investigation had showed that the prime minister had committed no wrongdoing in the cases. “I am satisfied that there was no evidence to show that the donation was a form of gratification given corruptly. “The evidence showed that the donation was not an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing in relation to his capacity as a prime minister,” he said. He said that investigation also showed that in Aug 2013, a sum of USD620 million (RM2.03 billion) was returned by Najib to the Saudi royal family, as the sum was not utilised...’ No mention was made about what the monies were for, and for what were some of the monies utilised.

(13) The report also stated: ‘The Attorney-General’s Chambers today cleared Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak of any criminal wrongdoing in the case involving a donation from the Middle East, as well as that involving SRC International. The AG’s Chambers will also return the three investigation papers on the cases, and has instructed the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to close the IPs.’

(14) The pronouncement of the Attorney General about the guilt/innocence of parties being investigated, may be contrary to the United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, in particular Article 10, which states that, ‘The office of prosecutors shall be strictly separated from judicial functions’. The determination of guilt or innocence is a function of the Judiciary, not the Attorney General.

(15) The power to commence investigations and discontinue investigations rests with the relevant investigative authorities, and not with the Attorney General/Public Prosecutor. The duty of the Public Prosecutor is merely to determine the sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence for the purpose of prosecution, and if it is determined that the evidence is insufficient, then Investigation papers are returned to the investigating authorities to do further investigation.  

(16) On 24/2/2016, the MACC issued a statement on the advice of their Operation Review Panel concerning the case involving SRC International and allegations regarding the RM2.6 billion (‘berhubung kes membabitkan SRC International dan dakwaan wang derma RM2.6 bilion’)

(17) The Operation Review Panel agreed that MACC should re-submit the Investigation papers concerning SRC International to the Attorney General for his consideration. With regard to the matter of the investigation concerning the RM2.6 billion, it acknowledges that the investigation is yet to be completed, and urges the MACC to apply to the Attorney General to issue the required permission for Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) to enable MACC to get evidence and documents from financial institutions in other countries in connection with the RM2.6 billion investigation. The relevant text from the MACC Statement (which was in Bahasa Malaysia) is as follows:

…PPO bersetuju bahawa SPRM perlu mengemukakan kembali kertas siasatan berhubung SRC International kepada Peguam Negara untuk pertimbangan. Memandangkan siasatan SPRM berhubung dakwaan wang derma RM2.6 bilion masih belum lengkap, Panel telah mengesyorkan agar SPRM meneruskan siasatannya dan memohon Peguam Negara agar mengeluarkan kebenaran Bantuan Undang-undang Bersama (MLA) bagi SPRM memperoleh bukti dan dokumen-dokumen daripada institusi kewangan di luar negara sebagai sebahagian daripada siasatan ke atas isu RM2.6 bilion…

(18) The MACC request for the necessary action by the Attorney General for Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) is not new. It was also made before in December 2015, as reported in Bloomberg Business. Despite efforts made, the said MACC statement could not be accessed from the MACC website.

…The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission said it made several proposals and recommendations for action in the case, according to a statement Thursday. While it has completed investigations involving witnesses in the country, the MACC said it still needs permission from the attorney general to get documents and evidence from overseas financial institutions. "This evidence can only be taken by the Mutual Legal Assistance process because it is tied to the provision of banking legislation of the country concerned," the agency said. "MACC has made an application under the MLA to attorney general to obtain documents and evidence. - Bloomberg Business, 31/12/2015, Malaysian Anti-Graft Agency Submits Probe Results of Najib Funds

(19) On the face of it, it looks like the Attorney General has procrastinated in providing the necessary permission for Mutual Legal Assistance, which was essential for the completion of investigation, and this could be perceived as an act ‘obstructing’ criminal investigations. 

(20) It is now revealed that Mohamed Apandi Ali is a Director of the Lembaga Urusan Tabung Haji (LUTH), whereby the date of appointment is uncertain.

(21) An Attorney General, also the Public Prosecutor, should not be Director of any legal entity, as this would compromise his independence.

(22) The Federal Constitution, in Article 143, amongst others stipulate as follows: 

(1) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint a person who is qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court to be the Attorney General for the Federation.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Cabinet or any Minister upon such legal matters, and to perform such other duties of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assigned to him by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Cabinet, and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other written law.

(3) The Attorney General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before a Syariah court, a native court or a court-martial…

(23) The Attorney General, as such, has many roles and responsibilities, and some of these are competing obligations, if exercised at the same time is impossible. It is absurd when the Attorney General considering instituting criminal proceedings, and at the same time is also seen to be personally providing legal advice to the suspect/s or the potential accused.

(24) The Federal Constitution, in Article 8, states that, ‘All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.’ As such, it can be said that no one is above the law, even the Prime Minister or a government-owned legal entity.  When a person and/or legal entity commits an offence, it is the Attorney General, without any other special consideration or treatment, do the needful to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence.

(25) Article 12 of the UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors stipulate that ‘Prosecutors shall, in accordance with the law, perform their duties fairly, consistently and expeditiously, and respect and protect human dignity and uphold human rights, thus contributing to ensuring due process and the smooth functioning of the criminal justice system.’

(26) Article 13(a) of the said Guidelines states that ‘In the performance of their duties, prosecutors shall carry out their functions impartially and avoid all political, social, religious, racial, cultural, sexual or any other kinds of discrimination’.

(27) Prosecutors shall perform their duties without fear, favour or prejudice. Public Prosecutors’ powers should be exercised independently and be free from political interference.

(28) If the Attorney General is unable to act as Public Prosecutor, then rightly he should not. Malaysian laws, in Section 376(2) Criminal Procedure Code (Act 593) states that, ‘The Solicitor-General shall have all powers of a Deputy Public Prosecutor and shall act as Public Prosecutor in case of the absence or inability to act of the Attorney General.’

(29) As such, in this case involving Najib Tun Razak, the Prime Minister and Finance Minister of Malaysia, and government-owned companies, Mohamed Apandi Ali clearly is unable to act as Public Prosecutor, and the Solicitor General should act as Public Prosecutor.

(30) With reference to the abovementioned and other matters, the following points of concern, amongst others, have arisen concerning Attorney General Mohamed Apandi Ali:

(a) The manner and timing of his appointment raises the perception that Mohamed Apandi Ali may have been appointed to speedily replaced a Public Prosecutor who may have proceeded to institute criminal proceedings against Najib Tun Razak (the current Prime Ministers) and/or against legal entities owned and/or controlled by the government;

(b) That there may exist a perception that Mohamed Apandi Ali may have acted to derail or delay investigations against the Najib Tun Razak (the current Prime Minister) /or against legal entities owned and/or controlled by the government. The fact that the MACC, who have been asking for the required Attorney General’s permission since December 2015 for usage of the Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) that is required to obtain evidence and documents from financial institutions in other countries, have yet to be given the relevant authorisation required to complete investigation, is a matter of concern.

(c) That Mohamed Apandi Ali may have failed to have acted professionally as a Public Prosecutor when it was alleged that he had advised the Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, the suspect and possible future accused in an ongoing criminal investigation, to not provide an explanation to Parliament. 

(d) That Mohamed Apandi Ali allegedly attempted to speedily clear Najib Tun Razak and SRC International of alleged crimes, including corruptions and/or other breaches of law, and to stop investigations. 

(e) The failure of Mohamed Apandi Ali to acknowledge that in these circumstances when the Prime Minister and Government were the subject of investigations, he would be unable to perform the duties of the Public Prosecutor as required by law, and thereby should have disqualified himself, enabling the Solicitor General to carry out the duties and obligations of the Public Prosecutor, while he as Attorney General continued to carry on his role as adviser and ‘government lawyer’ to the Prime Minister, Cabinet and government.

(f) The fact that he still is a Director of LUTH, and maybe also other companies and/or legal entities, raises the question of his independence, and his ability to carry out the duties of the Attorney General impartially without fear and favour.

(31) As such, even if Mohamed Apandi Ali may personally not be guilty of any wrongdoing or dereliction of duties, for the good of Malaysia and for the improvement of public perception of the administration of justice, we may have to take drastic actions including the appointment of a new Attorney General.

(32) The public need to have confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system, whereby prosecutors play a crucial role in the administration of criminal justice, and as such prosecutorial discretion, should be exercised independently and be free from political interference.

(33) Events of the recent past, especially concerning RM2.6 billion, has eroded the confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system, and immediate and even drastic steps need to be taken to restore confidence in the administration of criminal justice, for the good of Malaysia.


THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved:

(A) That the Malaysian Bar calls on Mohamed Apandi Ali to immediately resign as Attorney General, for the good of Malaysia, to restore public confidence and perception of the rule of law, in particular the administration of criminal justice in Malaysia.

(B) That the Malaysian Bar calls for the Solicitor General, pursuant to section 376(2) Criminal Procedure Code, to assume the role and responsibilities of Public Prosecutor in the cases involving Najib Tun Razak, 1MDB, SRC International and the RM2.6 billion, considering the disability of the Attorney General to continue to act as Public Prosecutor for these cases, by reason of past conduct and the existing competing and conflicting roles of the Attorney General.

(C) That the Malaysian Bar also calls on Attorney General Mohamed Apandi Ali to immediately resign as Director in Lembaga Urusan Tabung Haji, and any positions held in companies, statutory body and/or legal entities save those positions that the law specifically requires.

(D) That the Public Prosecutor and prosecutors should always not only be independent but also be seen to be independent. They should not be receiving any other income, ‘donations’ or benefits from any other sources. They should also not be Directors of companies, or holding any other positions in legal entities, save those specifically provided for in law.

(E) That the Malaysian Bar promote and work towards the adoption and application of the principles contained in the UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, and such international standards in Malaysia.

(F) That the Malaysian Bar promote the establishment of an independent commission or committee for the purposes of the selection and recommendation to the Yang Di Pertuan Agong for the appointment of the Attorney General.

(G) That the Malaysian Bar continue doing all that is necessary to promote the rule of law, and a just administration of justice in Malaysia.