However, he said there must be new evidence that the prosecution considers justifiable to reopen investigations into the murder of the Mongolian national.
"We
will consider the Bar Council's suggestion, but we just cannot re-open
all cases, including those of the 1960s. There must be new evidence to
justify the re-opening of a case. The case has gone through a trial,
where everything was adduced," Gani (right) said.“We have to be careful for fear it may create a bad precedent ... There are thousands and thousands of cases. We have to be cautious and review them (the cases) properly. If there is only talk, we cannot re-open. There must be (true) evidence.”
The Bar Council, immediately after its 66th annual general meeting, had called for the Altantuya case to be reopened.
It had also recommended that senior lawyer Cecil Abraham be referred to the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board.
This follows a revelation
by lawyer Americk Sidhu that Cecil had admitted to him that the second
statutory declaration related to Altantuya's murder had been made by
private investigator P Balasubramaniam on the instructions of Najib
Abdul Razak, then the deputy premier.Gani also said that Balasubramaniam's death earlier this month is not an issue, but the question is whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant the reopening of the case.
“It must be tangible evidence for me to reopen the case. That is my view. It does not matter what happens around us,” he reiterated.
“The first SD and second SD have been brought up before. The issue brought by Americk concerns a counsel that the Bar itself (is handling). If we look and understand, the Bar is referring the matter to the disciplinary board. So let them handle it.”
‘Bar has sufficient powers’
Cecil was present at today's event but was seen leaving the hall as soon as a press conference was called.
The AG said he would rather see the Bar Council handle the matter as it has own disciplinary board.
“That is what the Bar Council is doing, and I admire and respect them for that,” he added.
He had earlier witnessed a signing ceremony between the government and the Asian African Legal Consultative Organisation secretary-general Dr Rahmat Mohamad, for the body to operate arbitration cases at the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre Arbitration (KLRCA).
Gani is the adviser to the KLRCA.
Yesterday, he had said that he has no power to probe Balasubramaniam's second SD which was purportedly prepared by Cecil.
'Why kill Altantuya?'
In an immediate comment, the DAP's Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo said that since Gani "would like us to believe that everything was adduced" during the trial and therefore the case has been solved, he should have no difficulty in understanding that it is important in solving a case to know the reasons for the murder.
"Equally
important would be the question as to who exactly ordered the killing
and why, especially in a case where the evidence shows that the accused
did not know the deceased. So why kill the deceased?" he asked in a
statement."Perhaps he (Gani) could tell us then who gave the instructions to kill Altantuya and what was the motive behind it."
Throughout the written judgment by Shah Alam High Court judge Mohd Zaki Md Yasin did not allude to the motive for the murder.
"Whatever the motive was, it is a matter of law that the motive, although relevant, has never been the essential to constitute murder," said Mohd Zaki in his 70-page judgment.
No comments:
Post a Comment