|
 •
Lawyers: Balasubramaniam has committed an offence
©The
Star (Used by permission)
by Chelsea L.Y. Ng, Manjit Kaur and Andrea Filmer
• Balasubramaniam retracts entire content of his first
statutory declaration
• Lawyer: Second SD was probably made under duress
• Cops to look into PI’s declarations
• Shocked by Saiful’s claims
• No military intel report on Altantuya, says Jeneral
PETALING JAYA: A statutory declaration is evidence given under oath which cannot
be retracted, said a serving judge and several senior members of the legal
fraternity.
They believed private investigator P. Balasubramaniam’s act of retracting his
initial declaration, which made serious accusations against Deputy Prime
Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, could open the former to perjury charges.
According to the judge, who is an authority in criminal law, affirming a
statutory declaration was akin to giving evidence in court.
“Under the normal rule of evidence, one cannot withdraw it unless he has very
strong reasons. Those reasons must be included in the withdrawal or else he
would be committing perjury,” he said.
He said if one was citing duress as a reason for making false accusations in a
statutory declaration, he must present proof of such pressure.
“He must show that the pressure was serious like it’s life-threatening to him or
his family members.
“He cannot just say that he is withdrawing the statutory statement because he
had earlier been forced to do it. Someone can now lodge a police report against
him and he could face a perjury charge,” he said.
Balasubramaniam announced yesterday that he had retracted the entire content of
his statutory declaration that alleged police had omitted vital information in
the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder case barely 24 hours after he made it public on
Thursday.
Bar Council chairman Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan said a statutory declaration was
basically evidence on oath that, once given, could not be retracted.
She, however, said a person could add or correct the statutory declaration to
file a further declaration.
“Because it is evidence on oath, and if there are untrue statements, then there
is the possibility of a person having given a false statement.”
Bar Council’s criminal law committee deputy chairman Datuk V. Sithambaran said
that under the law, two inconsistent statements meant that a person had most
likely committed perjury.
“Such an act under the case law suggests that a person is guilty of perjury,” he
said.
Senior lawyer Roger Tan said once a statutory declaration was made it could not
be cancelled midway because it was a sworn statement of fact.
Tan said Section 3 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1960 provided that a false
declaration was punishable.
Veteran lawyer Karpal Singh said the retraction amounted to an offence under
Section 193 of the Penal Code.
“Under the section, making a false statutory declaration carries the penalty of
not more than seven years' imprisonment or fine or both,” said the DAP chairman.
He also urged the private eye to make public the nature of the alleged duress.
Balasubramaniam retracts entire content of his first
statutory declaration
by Shahanaaz Habib and Paul Choo
KUALA LUMPUR: Barely 24 hours after making it public, private investigator P.
Balasubramaniam has retracted the entire content of his statutory declaration
that alleged police omitted vital information in the Altantuya murder case.
In the first statutory declaration, Balasubramaniam had claimed that police
omitted vital information, allegedly linking Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri
Najib Tun Razak in the Altantuya murder case.
Yesterday, Balasubramaniam revealed in a second statutory declaration that he
was “compelled to affirm the (first) statutory declaration dated July 1, 2008
under duress”.
The document also read that all substantive statements made were “inaccurate and
not the truth”.
Balasubramaniam kept mum when met by pressmen and his lawyer, Arulampalam Mariam
Pillai, was the only one speaking during the brief press conference.
Arulampalam also refused to entertain questions from pressmen, giving only a
brief statement that his client was under duress and that he was upset.
The statutory declaration withdrew all statements that Balasubramaniam had
revealed during a press conference organised by PKR de facto leader Datuk Seri
Anwar Ibrahim on Thursday.
This included the fact that he had informed police what political analyst Abdul
Razak Baginda had purportedly told him prior to Altantuya’s murder.
The second statutory declaration dated July 4 said:
> At no material time did Razak inform Balasubramaniam that the former was
introduced to Altantuya Shaariibuu by a VIP;
> At no material time did Razak inform him that Najib had a sexual relationship
with Altantuya and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse;
> At no material time did Razak inform him that Najib instructed Razak to look
after Altantuya, as he did not want her to harass him since he (Najib) was the
Deputy Prime Minister;
> At no material time did Razak and/or Altantuya inform him that Najib, together
with Razak and Altantuya, had met and all been together at a dinner in Paris;
> At no material time did Altantuya inform him that she wanted money in the sum
of US$500,000 (RM1.65mil) as commission for a submarine deal she had assisted
with in Paris;
> At no time whatsoever did Razak and/or Altantuya inform him that Najib met
Altantuya in Singapore;
> At no time whatsoever did Altantuya inform him that she wanted Balasubramaniam
to arrange to see Najib;
> At no time did he tell the police during the course of their investigations
about any relationship between Najib and Altantuya, as no such relationship
existed to his knowledge;
> At no time did Razak inform him that he had sent Najib an SMS the evening
before he (Razak) was arrested; and
> At no time did Razak inform him that Najib had sent him an SMS on the day of
his (Razak) arrest to the effect that he was going to see the IGP that day and
that the matter should be resolved and for Razak to remain calm.
Meanwhile, Americk Singh Sidhu, who represented Balasubramaniam during the press
conference with Anwar on Thursday, said he was unaware of Balasubramaniam's
actions.
“Reporters have been calling me all morning and I myself have no information on
this,” he said, adding that he was unable to get in touch with Balasubramaniam.
Lawyer: Second SD was probably made under duress
by Shahanaaz Habib
KUALA LUMPUR: Americk Singh Sidhu, the lawyer who had prepared the first
statutory declaration for private investigator P. Balasubramaniam, is convinced
his client was intimidated to retract his declaration.
He believed the private eye had been coerced “by either threats or promises as I
can think of no other reason”.
Balasubramaniam's first statutory declaration which he made public on Thursday
in a press conference with Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim alleged that Deputy Prime
Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak had had a sexual relationship with Mongolian
Altantuya Shaariibuu.
Balasubramaniam had said the police had omitted vital information about Najib's
relationship with the murdered Mongolian translator.
Speaking at a press conference at the PKR headquarters yesterday, Americk Singh
said his client had made the first statutory declaration voluntarily without
duress.
He said he had first met Balasubramaniam two months ago at a restaurant where he
was asked to help draft a formal document on the Altantuya case.
The declaration was made over a period of one and a half months in several
meetings with Balasubramaniam, each lasting hours, he said.
“I had no reason to doubt that what Balasubramaniam told me was anything other
than the truth. I was under the impression that he was a trustworthy person and
what he said was what he perceived with his own senses,” he said.
Americk Singh said he was shocked that within 24 hours his client had engaged
the services of another lawyer and made another statutory declaration, swearing
that the first one was untrue and that he had been forced to sign it.
“As I am familiar with Mr Bala's character, having spent hours recording his
statement, I am very sceptical that he signed the second statutory declaration
on his own free will,” he added.
Americk Singh said that after the press conference on Thursday, he left with
Balasubramaniam to go to his office and noticed that a number of calls to the
private investigator’s mobile phone went unanswered.
He said Balasubramaniam had told him they were from the police, one of which was
from ASP Tonny Lunggan, the investigating officer for the Altantuya murder case.
When Americk Singh told him that it was all right to answer the call, he said
Balasubramaniam then spoke to ASP Tonny and the call was very lively and jovial.
He said when Balasubramaniam left his office at 4.45pm, he thought the private
eye was going to meet ASP Tonny after 6.30pm for some fish head curry.
“He was in very good spirits when he left,” he said.
As to why he did not advise his client about his personal safety, Americk Singh
retorted: “He was going to see the police. How much safer can you be?”
As to why they chose to have the press conference for the first statutory
declaration at the PKR headquarters, he said: “I don’t think it was my decision
personally”.
“I think at the end of the day, if you ask yourself honestly where else could he
have had taken this to? He couldn’t have gone to the Umno HQ in PWTC because he
wouldn’t have gotten anywhere! So let’s look at the situation realistically,” he
said.
PKR vice-president R. Sivarasa, who was also at the press conference, said a
Royal Commission of Inquiry was urgently needed to look into the matter of
suppression of information and to establish which of the two statutory
declarations was true.
He suggested that “another crime” had been committed on Thursday night which
forced Balasubramaniam to retract his first statutory declaration.
“Who would have the motive to intimidate Balasubramaniam to retract the
statement immediately?” he said.
Cops to look into PI’s declarations
KUALA LUMPUR: Police will investigate both the statutory declarations made by
Private Investigator P. Balasubramaniam although he had withdrawn the first
statutory declaration that implicated Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun
Razak with murdered Mongolian interpreter Altantuya Shaariibuu.
Deputy Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar said police would conduct
a thorough investigation into the matter regardless of the retraction.
He declined to elaborate .
Balasubramaniam in his first statutory declaration had alleged that police
omitted pertinent information allegedly linking Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri
Najib Tun Razak with the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder case.
He declared he had informed police what Abdul Razak Baginda had purportedly told
him prior to Altantuya’s murder.
He also said Razak had told him that he was introduced to Altantuya by Datuk
Seri Najib Tun Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore and that Najib had
told him that he (Najib) and Altantuya had had a sexual relationship and that
“she was susceptible to anal intercourse.”
Balasubramaniam said Razak had also told him that Najib had asked him (Razak)
“to look after” Altantuya, who was also known as “Aminah,” because he did not
want her to harass him now that he was the Deputy Prime Minister.
He claimed Razak had told him that Altantuya had wanted money as she felt
entitled to a US$500,000 (RM1.65mil) commission from a submarine deal that she
had assisted the Malaysian Government secure in Paris; and that Najib, Razak and
Altantuya all had dinner together in Paris.
Balasubramaniam also said the day Razak was arrested for abetting in the murder
of Altantuya, he (Balasubramaniam) was with Razak at a lawyer’s office where
Razak showed him Najib’s SMS, which he received while they were both in the
office.
Najib’s message to Razak supposedly said: “I am seeing the IGP at 11am today ...
matter will be solved ... be cool.”
Meanwhile, PKR Youth lodged a police report against Najib despite
Balasubramaniam's retraction of his first statutory declaration.
The report, lodged by PKR Youth chief Shamsul Iskandar Mohd Akin at about 3pm
yesterday, called for further probe into both statutory declarations by Raja
Petra Kamarudin and Balasubramaniam.
In George Town, Penang’s PKR Youth also lodged a report calling on the
police to investigate Balasubramaniam’s initial statutory declaration.
In Seremban, Negri Sembilan youth chief Halim Aziz lodged a report
against Najib.
Shocked by Saiful’s claims
by Loong Meng Yee
PETALING JAYA: Former student leaders who knew Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan
expressed shock that the friendly and smart 23-year-old is involved in a sodomy
case.
“I could not believe it, I was shocked beyond words when I read the news about
Saiful’s allegation, it is so bizarre,” said Mohd Zuaril Akimi, 22.
Saiful, Mohd Zuaril and six other student leaders had represented Malaysia at
the Second Asian Youth Leaders Summit in Angeles University Foundation, Angeles
City, the Philippines in January last year.
Mohd Zuaril represented Universiti Sains Malaysia while Saiful represented
Universiti Tenaga Nasional. The group became close after they worked together
for some months to prepare a working paper for the summit.
“Saiful is friendly and responsible. Handsome, too,” said Mohd Zuaril.
While in Angeles City, the students met Datuk Azalina Othman Said, then Youth
and Sports Minister, who presented a paper at the summit.
“We seized the chance to take a picture with her. She did not mingle with us for
long and left soon after that.
“The minister also did not pay any special attention to Saiful that might
indicate they knew each other previously,” said Mohd Zuaril.
On Tuesday, the PKR released a picture showing Saiful and the group posing with
Azalina.
Mohd Zuaril, who graduated recently, said he had been getting snide remarks
after the photo was made public.
He tried contacting Saiful but failed.
“Like the rest of the world, I am also eager to hear what he has to say. I am
also worried for my friend. Whatever it is, he must be going through a tough
time and I wish I could offer support,” said Mohd Zuaril.
Another student who went to the summit was Afandy Sutrisno Tanjung, 23, from
Universiti Malaya.
Writing in afandytanjung.blogspot.com, he described Saiful as possessing
leadership qualities. Afandy wrote Saiful’s allegation had really been shocking
and “explosive to the whole of Malaysia.”
No military intel report on Altantuya, says Jeneral
KUALA LUMPUR: The military did not compile any report related to the murder of
Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu.
Military Intelligence director-general Lt-Jen Datuk Mohd Salleh Ismail also
dismissed claims by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim that the Parti Keadilan Rakyat
adviser’s life was in danger.
“There is no military intelligence report on the murder case of Altantuya. This
is strictly a matter for the police as it is a criminal case.
“I wish to reiterate that the statutory declaration made by Raja Petra
Kamaruddin on a military intelligence report is not true. Since I took over as
director-general, it has not come to my attention that this report exists,” he
said, denying that he passed any report to the Prime Minister.
He said Military Intelligence only monitored the chain of events as the
military’s role was to “keep tabs on security, especially militant and terrorist
acts” while Altantuya’s case was “a murder case”.
Lt Jen Salleh also dismissed reports of foreign military intelligence’s
involvement in plotting the downfall of the country’s leadership, and said
Anwar’s claim that his life was under threat was untrue as well.
“We did not get such reports. I am sure if there are, they will go through the
normal intelligence community to get confirmation.
“What is amazing is, after saying his life was under threat, Anwar appeared in
public (among) 10,000 people and nothing happened. He emerged unscratched,” he
said, adding that whoever tipped Anwar off was not credible.
“Maybe Anwar has other sources but they are not from my agency,” he said.
Asked if the joint military and police training was due to the current
situation, Lt Jen Salleh said the training was planned a long time ago to enable
the personnel to be acclimatised to the new procedures and laws relating to
public order.
“Whatever demonstrations held so far, the police had been able to keep them
under control. Public order is the police's responsibility and not the
military’s ,” he said.
Trackback(0)
 |
News 
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Report: LAWASIA Fact-finding Mission to Pakistan
Malacca Bar: Conference on the Roadmap to Local Government Elections 
There is at least one aspect of Bala's first statutory declaration which can be corroborated: the "be cool" text message which Razak Baginda supposedly received from the DPM. Bala said in the first (and now recanted) statutory declaration that Baginda showed the message to both Bala and Baginda's lawyer, when the three of them were at the lawyer's office. I suppose the lawyer can confirm whether such a text message was indeed shown by Baginda.
Surely Baginda had waived his solicitor-client privilege if he showed the message to Bala as well. It is arguable whether the communication between Baginda and his lawyer (at that time) was intended to be confidential if it was made in the presence of Bala.
Andrew Teh Leng Guan