安华伊布拉欣紧急文告

PRESS STATEMENT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE BY ANWAR IBRAHIM
安华伊布拉欣紧急文告
马来西亚，巴打灵再也，2008年7月3日

今天我们再次见证了另一起持续滥用权力和操纵刑事司法系统的典范。

在阿旦杜雅案件审讯中，其中一位证人在最近携带了有关她失踪和被谋杀的详细资料前来与我们交涉。这份资料令人十分震惊。

巴拉苏巴马廉（P Bala Subramaniam）先生当时是阿都拉萨（Abdul Razak Baginda）所聘请的私家侦探，他被劝告把他所知道的事以独立的方式寻求法律援助和文书记录。

今天他把志期2008年7月1日所做的法律声明公开，在这份声明中，他将会详细的告诉公众关于事件发生的实际情形，以及在这起案件中的关键人物所告诉过他的话，这些人物包括阿都拉萨和阿旦杜雅本人。

以下启示可自我说明
These revelations speak for themselves. They reveal, amongst others, the following allegations:

一、阿都拉萨曾聘请巴拉苏巴马廉，以处理因对她欠下的所声称的债务而产生的骚扰。（第５与第６段）

二、因为阿旦杜雅曾协助在巴黎的潜水艇交易，她被保证会获得５０万美元的佣金。（第２２段，第２５.５段，第２８.２段和２８.３段）

三、在新加坡的一场钻石展览会中，纳吉介绍阿旦杜雅给阿都拉萨认识。（第２５.５段，２８.１段）

四、阿旦杜雅、纳吉和阿都拉萨被目击曾在巴黎用餐。（第２８.２段）

五、在阿旦杜雅失踪后，在２００６年１２月２０日的几天前阿都拉萨的住家前发生骚动，阿旦杜雅的女同伴和洪先生（阿旦杜雅自聘的私人侦探）前来寻找阿旦杜雅，于是巴拉苏巴马廉被迫报警。警方巡逻车不久抵达，随后一名来自金馬區警局的警官拿了阿旦杜雅的女同伴所投保的报案书前来。巴拉苏巴马廉通知当时在家中的阿都拉萨在他家门前发生的事件。阿都拉萨过后电话联络慕沙莎菲（Musa Safri）副警監，他被告知慕沙莎菲将会回电至他的手机，这台手机
较后交给了金馬區警局的调查官。巴拉苏巴马廉不久接到慕沙莎菲的电话，他顺手将手机交给了调查官。在三、四分钟的交谈后，调查官告诉这位女子离开，并叫她在第二天找他（第３４－３８段）。我们相信慕沙莎菲副警監在当时是纳吉的保镖。

六、巴拉苏巴马廉在武吉安曼被连续的盘问了七天，他的供词已在２００６年１１月被记录下来。他已经把他所知道的都告诉了警方，包括所有阿都拉萨和阿旦杜雅所告诉他的，有关纳吉的事情。这些细节在他所签署的口供中都被省略了（第４９段）。

七、在沙安南法庭审讯的西鲁、阿兹拉和阿都拉萨的案件中，控方并没有对阿旦杜雅与纳吉的关系，或是他所接获慕沙莎菲副警監的电话的事发出提问。（第５０段）

八、当阿都拉萨被逮捕时，他告诉巴拉苏巴马廉说他已经在前个傍晚发送了一通短讯给纳吉（第５１段）。阿都拉萨也通知巴拉苏巴马廉，他已经接获纳吉的短讯，并显示给他看，信息上写着：「今天早上１１时我正在会见全国总警长。事情将会解决，请冷静」。

巴拉苏巴马廉的证据也提到关于阿旦杜雅和纳吉的关系。我们没有兴趣各人的关系，这完全是他们两人的事。

可是，他所透露的说词中却浮现了公众利益的问题：

ａ）警方调查官和负责检控案件的人士对证据的压制。这种压制只能在高层人士，比方说全国总警长和总检察长完全知晓的情况下发生。

ｂ）另外一个问题是，这种证据的压制是否是案件临审前临时撤换审案法官的原因——导致检控署刑事部主控官拿督尤索夫再納（Yusuf Zainal）被完全从他所领导的控告中被边缘化，而原本被加插在案件提控中的高级检控官沙烈胡丁（Sallehudin Saidin）则在数个月后被迫提早退休。

ｃ）这里可以被提出的问题是，这宗在２００７年３月开始审讯的案件中被突然撤换的法官，当时为何要这样做？

ｄ）纳吉说他不曾见过阿旦杜雅，他是否在撒谎？

ｅ）纳吉说他在「鲉鱼」级（Scorpene Class）潜艇采购案中并没有抽取佣金，他是否在撒谎？

巴拉苏巴马廉的辩白是我们一直在谈论的，阿旦杜雅谋杀案的调查并不彻底，而法庭中的调查程序看来就像是预先编排的。

这是国内司法运作所隐藏的严重问题，关键的机构如警方、检控署和司法的公正和公信力已经被诬蔑。

今天的启示进一步的确认了明显和持续滥用权力和操纵刑事司法系统的典范，就像当时我们在１９９８年在这个国家所见证那样。

这项揭露显示全权独立委员会设立的必要。

安华伊布拉欣

---

Press Statement - for immediate release —
3 July 2008, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia

Today we witness another episode of a consistent pattern of abuse of power and manipulation of the criminal justice system.

Recently one of the witnesses in the Altantuya trial approached us with detailed information of events connected to her disappearance and murder. The information was shocking.

Mr. P. Balasubramaniam, who was engaged by Abdul Razak Baginda as a private investigator was advised to seek legal counsel and document his story independently.

Today he is releasing a statutory declaration dated 1st July 2008 to the public detailing the story that he has to tell about what actually happened and what was told to him by key personalities in this saga including Abdul Razak Baginda and Altantuya herself.

These revelations speak for themselves. They reveal, amongst others, the following allegations:

1. Mr. Balasubramaniam was engaged by Abdul Razak Baginda to deal with alleged harassment by Altantuya in relation to debts owed to her (Paragraph 5 and 6).
2. Altantuya was promised a commission of USD 500,000 for assisting in a submarine deal in Paris (Paragraph 22, Paragraph 25.5 and Paragraph 28.2 and 28.3 ).
3. Altantuya was introduced to Razak Baginda by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore ( Paragraph 25.5 and Paragraph 28.1).
4. Altantuya, Datuk Seri Najib and Razak Baginda had all been seen together at a dinner in Paris (Paragraph 28.2).
5. After the disappearance of Altantuya, a commotion took place in front of Razak Baginda’s house several days after 20 December 2006 where girl friends of Altantuya and one Mr.Ang (Altantuya’s own private investigator) arrived searching for Altantuya. Balasubramaniam had to call the police. A patrol car arrived shortly. Shortly thereafter an investigating officer from Dang Wangi Police Station who was handling the missing persons report lodged by one of Altantuya’s girl friends arrived. Balasubramaniam then informed Razak Baginda who was at home to inform him of the events taking place at his front gate. Razak then called one DSP Musa Safri who called him back informing him that Musa would be calling him on his handphone and that he was to pass the phone to the inspector from Dang Wangi Police station. Balasubramaniam then received the call from Musa Safri and duly passed the phone to the inspector. After the conversation of 3 – 4 minutes, the inspector told the girls to disperse and to see him the next day (Paragraphs 34 – 38). We believe DSP Musa Safri was aide-de-camp to Datuk Seri Najib at the material time.
6. Balasubramaniam was interrogated at Bukit Aman for seven consecutive days and his statement recorded at the end of November 2008. He says that he told the police all that he knew including everything Razak Baginda and Altantuya had told him about their relationships with Najib. These details were omitted from the statement he was asked to sign (Paragraph 49).
7. During the trial of Sirul, Azilah and Razak Baginda at at the Shah Alam High Court, the prosecutor did not ask him any questions in respect of the relationship Altantuya had with Datuk Seri Najib or of the phone call that he had received form DSP Musa Safri (Paragraph 50).
8. When Razak Baginda was arrested, Balasubramaniam was told by him that he had sent an SMS messsage to Najib the evening before (Paragraph 51). Razak also informed Balasubramaniam that he had received an SMS from Najib and showed it to him; the message read “I am seeing IGP at 11 A.M. today …. matter will be solved … be cool”.

Mr. Balasubramaniam’s evidence also mentions the extent of the relationship between Altantuya and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak. We are not interested in the personal nature of the relationship. That is entirely his own business and hers.

However the allegations revealed by him raise key questions of public interest:

a) Suppression of evidence by the police investigating officers and those responsible for prosecuting this case. Such suppression could only have happened with the full knowledge of top public officials such as the IGP and the AG.
b) The question is also raised as to whether such suppression of evidence was the reason behind the last minute switch in DPP’s handling the case – where the head of the Criminal Division of the AG’s Chambers, Datuk Yusuf Zainal Abiden was completely sidelined from the case leading him and the senior DPP originally slotted for the case Sallehudin Saidin to put in papers for early retirement some months later.
c) Questions can be raised now with regard to the sudden switching of the judge fixed to hear the case which took place in March 2007 – why was this really done?
d) Did Datuk Seri Najib lie when he said that he had never met Altantuya before?
e) Did Datuk Seri Najib lie when he said that he was not involved in any commission deals for the purchases of the Scorpene submarines”

Mr.Balasubramaniam’s evidence vindicate what we have been saying all along; there has been no proper investigation of the murder of Altantuya and the investigation and proceedings in court seem to following a pre-arranged script for a pre-arranged outcome.

This has serious implications for the administration of justice in the country where the integrity and credibility of our key institutions such as the police, the AG’s chambers and the judiciary are already severely tarnished.

Today’s revelations further confirm a clear and consistent pattern of manipulation of the criminal justice system that we have witnessed in this country since 1998.

The allegations revealed here warrant a full Royal Commission of Inquiry.

ANWAR IBRAHIM