The admission by the Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail that it was a mistake when he decided not to give the court a reason for replacing the entire prosecution team in the Altantunya Shaariibuu murder trial has raised further questions.
Gani said he had replaced the entire team of prosecutors to ensure a “fair trial” to all parties concerned. He said he had taken Deputy Public Prosecutor Salehuddin Saidin out because he was seen playing “badminton” with trial judge Justice Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin.
He was going to replace Salehuddin with the Chamber’s head of prosecution Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden, but later realized that the latter socialized with the judge as well.
(1) How many of the DPPs in the AG’s Chambers now play badminton or socialize with judges? Is Gani Patail going to issue a Code of Conduct for his prosecutors and officers forbidding them from playing badminton or socializing with judges?
(2) Why didn’t Justice Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin recuse himself from the trial for having socialized with the prosecution? Does the Judges’ Code of Ethics forbid judges from playing badminton or socializing with prosecutors?
If so, can disciplinary action be taken against Justice Mohd Zaki under Article 125(3B) which was amended last year to provide for sanctions to be imposed on judges for breaching provisions of the Code of Ethics?
Or do we have two Codes at variance with each other, one governing judges allowing them to socialize with prosecutors while the code governing prosecutors forbid them to socialize with judges?
Article 125 (3B) and (3C) of the Federal Constitution reads:
“The Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the recommendation of the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief Judges of the High Courts may, after consulting the Prime Minister, prescribe in writing a code of ethics which shall also include provisions on the procedure to be followed and sanctions which can be imposed other than the removal of a judge from office under Clause (3), in relation to a breach of any provision of the code of ethics.
“(3C) The code of ethics prescribed under Clause (3B) shall be observed by every judge of the Federal Court and every judicial commissioner.”
#1 by Jong on Sunday, 17 June 2007 - 3:11 pm
Whatever it is the whole set up sucks, suspicious!
In the first place why was the initial judge Datuk KN Segara taken off hearing the case?
As for Justice Datuk Mohd Zaki if he has any ethics, he should also excuse himself from hearing this case. Why is he so adamant to stay on?
#2 by goldenhub on Sunday, 17 June 2007 - 3:42 pm
Because a certain floor in Putrajaya needs him to conduct the orchestra erm kangaroo court?
#3 by dawsheng on Sunday, 17 June 2007 - 4:16 pm
Mahathir is out of the country and so is Abdullah Badawi, and we are left with Najib incharge of the country. But rumour has been going around and Najib was said to be indirectly involved in the murder of Altantuya, and with certain quarters claimed they possesed evidents that are against Najib, the outcome of this rumour and suspicion is prediction that Najib will have to kiss his PM dream goodbye. But wait a minute, the old man is not around so is the married man, don’t you think is a perfect time for a coup d’tat?
#4 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 17 June 2007 - 9:08 pm
Does the Code of Ethics say “You cannot play badminton with judges”??
#5 by Richard Teo on Sunday, 17 June 2007 - 9:11 pm
Would not it be more expedient to replace the judge than to replace the whole prosecution team?The prosecution team has already spent nearly five months preparing for the case whereas the judge has not heard or part prepared anything.Therefore logically it would be more appropriate to replace the judge than the whole prosecution team.Unless the intention was to deprive the prosecution of an opportunity to properly prepare for their defence giving the short notice a new team was appointed to take over the case.
#6 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 17 June 2007 - 9:17 pm
The plan is to keep changing the prosecution team until you are left with the junior ones whose experience is limited in the area of their expertise. So that when prosecution loses the case eventually after a planned mistrial, and since you cannot be prosecuted twice for the same crime, the accused are set free – not because they did not do the crime but because of the rule regarding double jeopardy.
Good try. But will it work??
#7 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 17 June 2007 - 9:20 pm
“Would not it be more expedient to replace the judge than to replace the whole prosecution team?The prosecution team has already spent nearly five months preparing for the case whereas the judge has not heard or part prepared anything.” Richard Teo
Isn’t this obvious? They want to replace some members of the team if not its head. Since they cannot replace just one, so they replace all.
#8 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 17 June 2007 - 9:22 pm
If the idea is just to delay the trial then that is easily done. There are ways short of replacing counsel or judge.
#9 by moong cha cha II on Sunday, 17 June 2007 - 9:25 pm
i spoke to Pak Belalang just now.
he said tomorrow’s hearing will be postponed, & Baginda’ charges willl be dropped later.
#10 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 17 June 2007 - 9:26 pm
AG Gonzales had all eight federal prosecutors replaced and is now under fire. They were replaced to make way for new ones who are less fiercely independent if you will. They were replaced with specific cases in mind though the White House denies all that.
#11 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 17 June 2007 - 9:40 pm
“he said tomorrow’s hearing will be postponed, & Baginda’ charges willl be dropped later.”
Usually we have counsel for the defense asking for postponements for one reason or another since it could be assumed that the prosecution has all the evidence to begin prosecution in the first place. The usual strategy for the defense is to keep asking for time until the process of discovery is completed.
But in this case postponements are asked for by the prosecution because purportedly the new team would need more time to study the case.
Will the charges be dropped? For what reason?
#12 by undergrad2 on Monday, 18 June 2007 - 6:43 am
If you ask me five months is too short a period for a case like this. In the U.S. a year would have been appropriate.
#13 by Godamn Singh on Monday, 18 June 2007 - 7:49 am
Wait a minute! For a murder charge to stick there must be a body?? Was her body ever found? Or what was found were skeletal remains purported to be human remains and tested positive for DNA?
It is possible that the prosecution case may end up without the defense being called?
#14 by Jong on Monday, 18 June 2007 - 9:38 am
“…to ensure a fair trial” – AG Gani Patail
– why is he not personally leading the prosecution team?
#15 by shaolin on Monday, 18 June 2007 - 12:13 pm
Mind You It is a DIRTY TRICK and Dramatic Acts are going
on shows!! WHY Dk KN Segara is taken away mainly because
he is a Non-Bias and Clean Judge!! And this case DOES NOT
suit him to be there as Chief Judge!
The TRICK is keep on POSTPONING the HEARING, CHANGING of JUDGE and PROSECUTORS can finally LEAD to NO-CASE!! All
the SUSPECTS WILL EVENTUALLY be RELEASED as FREE MEN!!!
This sort of VERDICT of CRIMINAL CASES CAN ONLY happen in BODOHland!!! BECAUSE people in the CABINET are the MIGHTIEST
LOTS!! They acclaimed that EVEN Gods CANNOT PUNISH them!!
#16 by Phat-kor on Monday, 18 June 2007 - 12:23 pm
wait a minute,,,now the trial judge and the defence lawyer are also in the same circus
#17 by Ghost on Monday, 18 June 2007 - 1:30 pm
Our world, the world that we all live in, may be just an experiments of Life to differentiate and compare the values and moralities between human and dino, which clearly answered that we’re no better or maybe worst compare to those cold blooded creatures although we often regards ourself as the higher being through the complexity of our creation, however, Life reacted differently, complexity better than simplicity? or otherwise? and may the end wake us all up, may the end end our misinterpretation of Life of totality.
#18 by Jong on Monday, 18 June 2007 - 1:52 pm
“I pray to Allah for right to be done. I don’t want justice. I want right to be done,” – Mrs Razak Baginda. She said just before the trial began.
Does anyone know what she meant?
#19 by Jong on Monday, 18 June 2007 - 2:27 pm
I take it as a message to “to whom it may concern” –
that RB sacrificed for you, he has the right to be let off by hook or by crook otherwise, if if he sinks you will go down with him just the same.
Someone’s shitting bricks now!
#20 by Toyol on Monday, 18 June 2007 - 2:47 pm
That’s why it is a kangaroo court. Only kangaroos preside in it…they all jump to the beat!
#21 by dawsheng on Monday, 18 June 2007 - 3:18 pm
“I pray to Allah for right to be done. I don’t want justice. I want right to be done,†– Mrs Razak Baginda. She said just before the trial began.
Does anyone know what she meant?” Jong
Justice as it is meant the murderer must go to the gallow, and that what’s she didn’t want. She want Baginda’s right to be release unconditionally because he is one important Malay and the kangaroo court should honor this.
#22 by undergrad2 on Monday, 18 June 2007 - 5:11 pm
//“I pray to Allah for right to be done. I don’t want justice. I want right to be done,†– Mrs Razak Baginda. She said just before the trial began.
Does anyone know what she meant?†Jong//
This shows this woman does not know her left from her right.
#23 by Utopia on Monday, 18 June 2007 - 5:42 pm
POLICE + ARMY + JUDICIARY + EKSECUTIVE (Government) = BN
They are all no longer independant branch. Especially for JUDICIARY since the 1987-88 incident where PM can indirectly ‘sack’ judges whom he dislike and put up a puppet who obeys him. The conclusion is, change BN and as a result, changing them all at once!
#24 by Jong on Monday, 18 June 2007 - 7:14 pm
Mrs Razak Baginda – wasn’t she a former magistrate? Then they are truly meant for each other, their marriage must be made in heaven, if there’s really one!
#25 by undergrad2 on Monday, 18 June 2007 - 8:54 pm
[deleted]
#26 by Jong on Monday, 18 June 2007 - 10:30 pm
oh boy you envious!
#27 by Jong on Monday, 18 June 2007 - 10:36 pm
“sound envious”
#28 by simonscwee on Wednesday, 20 June 2007 - 1:13 am
The first two days of trial saw the reporters unable to agree on this point: Did or didn’t Razak Baginda make the police report of extortion by the late Altantuya. There are conflicting versions on this point. Sample this:
The Star
Tun Abdul Majid said that upon confiding in a senior police officer friend about his problems, Abdul Razak was advised to lodge a police report in view of the serious threats.
However, the political analyst did not do so and in turn, asked his friend to keep whatever he told him a secret. Abdul Razak then met C/Insp Azilah at his office at the Bangunan Lembaga Getah Asli on the morning of Oct 18 after his friend gave him his number.
New Straits Times
Balasubramaniam: Because she was extorting money from him.
Tun Majid: Based on your experience, isn’t extortion a criminal offence?
Balasubramaniam: Yes. I advised him to lodge a police report.
The court was told that Razak did lodge a police report. He was accompanied to the police station by a lawyer friend identified only as Darren.
Bernama
He said that after Abdul Razak refused to meet Altantuya at his office, she went to his house and caused a scene before she was taken to the police station to lodge a report.”Abdul Razak, through his private investigator, asked the deceased not to lodge a police report because he was worried about the publicity in the press and the private investigator also advised him to lodge a police report but he didn’t. He also did not follow the advice to get the help of Immigration to deport the deceased,” he added.
Utusan
Rentetan cerita tersebut tidak terputus apabila terdapat keterangan yang menunjukkan Abdul Razak telah menceritakan masalah ugutan Altantuya kepada rakannya, seorang pegawai kanan polis.
Rakannya itu telah menasihati Abdul Razak untuk membuat laporan polis memandangkan ancaman Altantuya adalah serius, namun tertuduh itu tidak berbuat demikian.
Abdul Razak yang telah meminta rakannya itu supaya merahsiakan apa yang telah diceritakan, sebaliknya telah meminta rakannya itu memperkenalkan seorang pegawai polis dari Balai Polis Brickfields untuk membantunya menyelesaikan masalah dengan Altantuya.
If he did make the police report over the extortion bid then he might have nothing to hide and this could be just a simple extortion case went wry.
If he did not make that police report then he might really have something to hide. All the inferences that this case has a political implication could be bolstered further.
At this initial stage what has been unfolded in court is purely a love affairs turned sour leading to the murder. The political inferences may come during cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and later the testimonies of the defence witnesses.
The case also underscore the importance of getting the right person for the right job.
Getting policemen with access to explosives and firearms would result in a “blow up†job (jeffooi’s joke).
Private investigators of which I was one, with no access to explosives and firearms would resort to cleaner and quieter resolution.
There was a case in Singapore in which a man befriended a vagabond, insured him for S$500,000 and then took him to Cambodia where he drown in a bath tub.
He returned to Singapore and made the insurance claim but was rejected, He sue and the case was dismissed on the following grounds:-
1. The vagabond’s drowning was under mysterious circumstance; and
2. The man had no “insurable interest†over the vagabond.
If the drowning were to happen in Singapore he would not only lose his claim but also his life as well via hanging for murder.
A private investigator would instead advise to him to lure her to Cambodia on promises of conciliation and then adopt the bath tub strategy.
Of course the PI would have other methods as just as clean and quiet. But the moral of the story is: If one must take a bath in Cambodia, never use a bath tub.
#29 by KS R on Wednesday, 20 June 2007 - 4:02 am
Hi
“I pray to Allah for right to be done. I don’t want justice. I want right to be done,†– Mrs Razak Baginda. She said just before the trial began.
I pray to God Justice to be done not right to be done. How come they kill the women and right to be done. In the name of Jesus Christ whoever involve must pay heavy punishment. Any close up then God is watching God Bless will be bless, Curse will be curse and you just mark my word. I pray God is at work
#30 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 20 June 2007 - 10:22 am
“If one must take a bath in Cambodia, never use a bath tub.”
Yes. Use the river instead.
#31 by Jong on Wednesday, 20 June 2007 - 10:32 am
KS R:
The man and God part, she has surrendered and accepted the fact of her husband’s guilt.
The threat/warning is NOW, man to man.