|
Counsel: No proof Razak involved |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, 31 July 2008 08:19am |
|
©The
Star (Used by permission)
SHAH ALAM: There is no evidence to prove that political
analyst Abdul Razak Baginda had abetted Altantuya Shaariibuu's murder, the High
Court heard.
Counsel Wong Kian Kheong submitted that his client's call to his private eye P.
Balasubramaniam on the night of Oct 19, 2006, – when the Mongolian woman was
last seen – to ask him to continue talking to her until the police arrived, as
per C/Insp Azilah Hadri's instructions, could not be considered as aiding in her
murder.
Wong contended that the fact that there were phone calls and SMSes between his
client and C/Insp Azilah during the alleged time of the abetment was “neither
here nor there” as a witness from Maxis had testified that the mobile phone
service provider’s system did not record the actual contents of phone
conversations and SMSes.
“If a record of a series of phone calls and SMSes between two particular mobile
phone numbers may constitute evidence of abetment of an offence, this is not
only absurd but creates an extremely dangerous precedent.
“It is so easy to frame a user of a mobile phone by repeatedly calling or
sending SMSes to him without his consent,” he pointed out.
Wong said police had found nothing incriminating in the laptops and cell phones
they seized from Abdul Razak and that the political analyst had also given his
full cooperation to police.
“If Abdul Razak had been guilty of abetment, he would not have revealed C/Insp
Azilah's role in his police statement,” he further submitted.
Wong disputed the credibility of the alleged demand by Altantuya for Abdul Razak
to give her US$500,000 (about RM1.85mil at that time) and three tickets to
Mongolia in return for her not lodging a police report as claimed by
Balasubramaniam in his testimony.
He pointed out that the private eye could not remember if he had informed Abdul
Razak about the alleged demand and that Altantuya’s two companions to Malaysia
had no knowledge of it. The prosecution's opening statement also had no mention
of this.
The lawyer said it made no sense for the deceased to demand for the tickets when
all three had return tickets to Mongolia.
Wong contended that an adverse inference against the prosecution's case should
be drawn for its failure to call three material witnesses – Abdul Razak's lawyer
Dhiren Rene Norendra, Deputy Supt Musa Safri and Balasubramaniam's assistant K.
Suras Kumar – to testify.
He submitted that their evidence was essential to the unfolding of the narrative
upon which the prosecution's case rests.
“There is a gap in the prosecution's case by not calling Dhiren, DSP Musa and
Suras Kumar. Such a gap cannot be filled by merely offering them to the defence,”
he said.
Wong said a similar inference should also be drawn against the prosecution's
case for the attribution of a mobile phone number registered to a TV3 broadcast
journalist to his client in a call correlation log tendered to court.
Wong submitted that the charge against his client was defective as it did not
specify the approximate place in Kuala Lumpur where the alleged abetment was
committed and that the alleged time period was extremely long as it spanned
almost 36 hours. He said that as such the charge itself was prejudicial towards
his client.
The hearing continues on Monday.
 |
News 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Circular No 297/2008
