逐鹿问鼎∶总检察长在玩什么把戏？【第二部分】

现在，你已经在上篇文章【逐鹿问鼎∶总检察长在玩什么把戏？】阅读了总检察署的回覆，请继续阅读一位杰出的律师对这宗肮脏的事件的意见，在这宗事件中，六名警方人员被控上法庭，而华人黑帮头子却在总检察长的指示下无罪释放。很明显的，总检察长把球踢入自己的龙门了。

---

日期：2007年8月27日
我方参考：01.4.3346.07.RY
贵方参考：

手递公函

马来西亚皇家警察部队
商业刑事调查局总监拿督蓝利尤索夫
邮区50650 吉隆坡
拿督翁路
武吉博塔那

敬启者，

有关我们的拿督维加也古玛与您的数次会议，会议是有关内政部法律顾问所发出，志期2007年8月22日的函件，此函件附上了有关哥打峇鲁高庭的一份起始令状①，编号24-278-2007。
①Originating Summons，OS

起始诉令的一方是原告吴清宝，另一方是内政部长、全国总警长和吉兰丹州总警长。

这份起始诉令在2007年8月16日左右被呈交到内政部法律顾问处。据我们所了解，你在2007年8月24日早上11时收到法律顾问的信函。根据信中内容，你与你的部门人员涉及了一宗调查，并被要求在2007年8月27日准备好宣誓书提呈给法律顾问。很明显的，时间受到限制。

我们对法律顾问在信中的指示感到困惑。一般上，作为对原告吴清宝宣誓书的回应，一份代表全国总警长和吉兰丹州总警长的单一的宣誓书已经足够。

尽管如此，我们还是符合了法律顾问的要求，由贵部门的下列人员完成宣誓书的草稿，他们是：

1. 峇哈林副警监（Baharin Bin Mohd Rose）
2. 莫哈默莎首席警长（C/Insp. Md. Shah Bin Kamarudin）
3. 黄振发副警曹长（D/SM Ong Chin Fatt）以及
4. 韩扎助理警察总监（ACP Hamzah Bin Mat Som）

我们也为您准备了宣誓书草稿。

尽管如此，我们需提醒您的是，在上述宣誓书草稿中的全部或部分内容，可使用做起始令状的审讯与否，取决于法律顾问的决定。因此，我们已经以草稿的形式准备好宣誓书。最终版本的宣誓书需由法律顾问处人员完成，并代表辩方提交。关于此点，您也许需要回忆本人在上周五给予您的口头劝告，尤其是联邦宪法第145条所禀明的有关总检控署的职责。

您诚挚的
拿督 C 维加也古玛

---

日期：2007年8月29日
我方参考：01.4.3346.07.RY
贵方参考：

手递公函

马来西亚皇家警察部队
商业刑事调查局总监拿督蓝利尤索夫
邮区50650 吉隆坡
拿督翁路
武吉博塔那

敬启者，

题目：哥打峇鲁高等法院其实令状编号24-278-2007 【吴清宝　对　马来西亚国家安全部副部长以及两名人士】

我给告知，并所理解的是，内政部法律顾问处已经指示总检察长和全国总警长做出宣誓书，以在上述审讯中被读出。

我必须警告的是，这三份宣誓书务必不能与副部长的宣誓书自相矛盾，特别是有关商业刑事调查局所规定的调查范围。如果即将呈交的宣誓书说明了商业刑事调查局没有调查吴清宝的权力，将会导致警方人员的权力受到限制，这会对警队造成负面影响。同样的，内政部部长和/或副部长的权力看来将会受到限制，其指示权和调查权将会受限于那些有权批准的人士，或被全国总警长所知晓。这种情况是对警方人员的作茧自缚，同时是前所未有的。

有关涉警方人员调查罪犯的权力的伸延以及/或限制，应该受限于《警察法令》和法律条文。有关调查的管理课题应该受限于警队内部，除非某方面如上面所述，有计划的显露不良意图。

因此，您最好让总检察长和全国总警长注意此事，以免让这件很明显出现问题的事项造成灾难性的后果，到时为时已晚。

您诚挚的

拿督 C 维加也古玛

---

光学辩字版
DATE: 27th August 2007
OUR REF 01.4.3346.07.RY
YOUR REF
BY HAND

Yang Berbahagia Dato’ Ramli Bin Yusuff
Pengarah
Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Komersil
Ibu Pejabat Polis Diraja Malaysia
Bukit Perdana
Jalan Dato’ Onn
50650 KUALA LUMPUR

Dear Dato’

We refer to the several meetings between our Dato’ C Vijaya Kumar and yourself with regards to the letter dated 22nd August 2007 from the office of the Legal Adviser, Ministry of Internal Security which enclosed the cause papers pertaining to Originating Summons No. 24-278-2007 in the High Court of Kota Bharu (“the OS”).

The parties to the OS are Goh Cheng Poh, the Plaintiff, on the one part, and the Deputy Minister of Internal Security, the Inspector-General of Police and the Chief Police Officer of Kelantan, on the other part.

The OS was served on the Legal Adviser, Minister of Internal Security, on or about the 16th August 2007. We understand you only received the Legal Adviser’s letter at 11.00 am on 24th August 2007. By the letter, you and officers in your department involved in the investigations were required to prepare affidavits for the legal Adviser’s office by 27th August 2007. The time constraints are evident.

We are quite perplexed by the request from the Legal Adviser as it is set out in the letter. Generally, a single affidavit filed on behalf of the Inspector-General of Police and the Chief Police Officers of Kelantan in response to the affidavit by Goh Cheng Poh, the Plaintiff, would suffice.

We have nevertheless, in compliance with the Legal Adviser’s request, finalized draft affidavits from the following officers from your department, that is:-

1. Deputy Supt. Baharin Bin Mohd Rose;
2. C/Insp. Md. Shah Bin Kamarudin;
3. D/SM Ong Chin Fatt and
4. ACP Hamzah Bin Mat Som.

We are also preparing a draft affidavit for you.

We are nevertheless putting you on notice that all or parts of the information contained in the said draft affidavits may or may not be open to disclose in the OS proceedings which is a matter that can only be determined by the Legal Adviser. For this reason, we have prepared the affidavits in draft form. The final affidavit or affidavits ought to be finalized by the Legal Adviser’s office and field for and on behalf of the Defendants. In this respect, you may recall the oral advice given to you Friday last concerning the duties of the office of the Attorney-General, in particular, Article 145 of the Federal Constitution.

Yours Faithfully,

DATO’ C VIJAYA KUMAR

---

DATE: 29th August 2007
OUR REF 01.4.3346.07.RY
YOUR REF

BY HAND

Yang Berbahagia Dato’ Ramli Bin Yusuff
Pengarah
Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Komersil
Ibu Pejabat Polis Diraja Malaysia
Bukit Perdana
Jalan Dato’ Onn
50650 KUALA LUMPUR

Dear Dato’

RE: KOTA BHARU HIGH COURT ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. 24-278-2007 GOH CHENG POH v TIMBALAN MENTERI KESELAMATAN DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA & 2 ORS

I am given to understand that the Legal Adviser of the Ministry of Internal Security has indicated that both Tan Sri Attorney-General and Tan Sri the Inspector-General of Police will be making affidavits to be read in the abovementioned proceedings.

I would like to caution that these affidavits must not contradict facts contained in your affidavit and that of the Deputy Minister, especially in relation to the investigative parameters vested in the Commercial Crime Department. If the affidavits which are to be filed have the effect of suggesting that the Commercial Crime Department did not have the powers to investigate Goh Cheng Poh, then the powers of police officers in general will be curtailed and will bear negative repercussions on the force. Similarly, the powers of the Minister and/or Deputy Minister of Home Affairs will seem to have been curtailed in that their directions and right to order investigations would be confined to those approved by or made known to the Inspector-General of Police. These are unprecedented fetters imposed upon the Executive as well as police officers.

Matters involving the extent and/or limits on the powers of police officers to investigate crime should be confined to the provisions of the Police Act and regulations made there under. Management Issues concerning investigations ought to be confined within the police force, unless it is the intent of the parties concerned to expose any mala fides as alleged in the abovementioned proceedings.

You may be well advice to therefore bring these matters to the attention of the Attorney-General and the Inspector-General of Police before it becomes a fait accompli, the disastrous consequences of which are self-evident.

Yours faithfully,

DATO’ C VIJAYA KUMAR

---

原文





出处∶Malaysia Today
原题∶The Corridors of Power : What game was the AG playing? (Part 2)
作者∶拉惹柏特拉
日期∶03-09-09
翻译∶西西留