Lawyers: Bark at AG, not IGP, on murder motive

 

Politicians are barking up the wrong tree in demanding that police chief Khalid Abu Bakar reveal the motive behind the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu, said a senior lawyer.

Bar Council’s criminal law committee member Baljit Singh Sidhu said the inspector-general of police (IGP) should not be dragged into this matter.

“It is attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail who should be explaining as he has custody, control and direction on where the prosecution is heading with the court case.

“This is because all the police investigation papers on the case are with the chambers.

“As far as I am concerned, the people are barking up the wrong tree. They should be asking the AG and not Khalid,” he told Malaysiakini.

Baljit added that while motive may not be a main ingredient in a murder case, it is nevertheless a “background factor” to be considered when the court makes a decision.

The senior lawyer was asked to comment on whether the IGP should reveal the motive behind the murder which saw two former police commandos, Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azhar Umar, sentenced to death.

Asked if Abdul Gani (right) should disclose the motive now that the case has ended, Baljit said that he should since he is the “bastion of public liberty”.

Unfortunately, he added, there is no legal obligation for him to do so.

“However, given his position in public office, Abdul Gani could explore coming out (on the motive) ... as there is a moral obligation to do so,” he said.

‘Motive important if murder premeditated’

Meanwhile, another senior lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, pointed out that it is important to establish motive if the murder is premeditated.

The lawyer said that the question in everyone’s lips is why would the two men from the police Special Action Unit abduct Altantuya, kill her and remove all traces of her.

“It is more like an assassination than a murder. Is the (police) special force in the business of killing people? What is their criteria in eliminating people? Is it national security or to hide a crime?

“These are valid questions which the police must investigate rather than say the court findings are final,” he said.

He further argued that if the defence for Azilah and Sirul was that they were following orders for national security, then it could be possibly wrong for them to be charged with murder.

“So the question is, why did they do it? That's where motive comes into the picture. Were the rogue cops making money from killing targets? If they did, who hired them?” he asked.

If the two were on an “assignment”, the senior lawyer said their “master” must also be charged.

“A soldier who shoots on the order of a superior will not be guilty of murder but the superior who gave the order would be,” he emphasised.

The senior lawyer further posed that if the IGP said the police had established a motive in the grisly murder, then would the AG deliberately concealed it.

Earlier today, former IGP Musa Hassan today fueled further speculation over the controversial case when he told Malaysiakini that the “main suspect would know best what had happened” in reference to political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda.

The latter had been charged with abetting the murder, but was later acquitted without his defence being called. The prosecution later decided not to appeal the acquittal.