Raja Petra Sedition trial: 'It was not C4'

• RPK Sedition Trial: Elements in article 'untrue and made up' says cop ©The Star PETALING JAYA: The explosive used to blow up Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu was not C4, a Petaling Jaya Sessions Court heard on Thursday. Chief investigator in the Altantuya murder case, Supt Gan Tack Guan, 49, who is a complainant in the ongoing Raja Petra Raja Kamarudin sedition trial said this when grilled by the defence team on his findings over the Mongolian murder. Defence counsel Gobind Singh Deo said he needed to ask Supt Gan about Altantuya’s murder as it was related to the substance of the sedition charge against his client. Asked how Altantuya was murdered, Supt Gan said “If I am not wrong, one kind of plasticine explosive was used to blow up her body at an empty place at Puncak Alam”. “It was not C4 (a type of explosive),” Supt Gan, who is Interpol’s National Centre Bureau assistant director based at Bukit Aman, told the packed courtroom. Questioned further by Gobind Singh, Supt Gan said he did not know how the explosive was placed on the woman’s body before it was detonated. “I was together with (another investigating officer) Asst Supt Tonny (Lunggan)," he said, prompting Gobind Singh to retort that “you are a useless investigating officer”. It caused lead prosecutor DPP Ishak Mohd Yusof to interject that the lawyer should not humiliate their witness. Upon hearing this, Sessions Court judge Rozina Ayob said that her court should not be used to attack or criticise anyone. Gobind Singh then asked Supt Gan if Altantuya was still alive when the explosive substance was placed on her body, to which the fifth witness said he did not know. At this juncture, DPP Ishak said he wanted confirmation from the court over the line of questioning by the lawyer saying that several witnesses, including bomb expert, had called to testify in the murder trial. He said the prosecution was concerned as the Shah Alam High Court was set to deliver its decision on Altantuya murder trial on Oct 31. “It is our concern that such questions, if allowed, would be subjudice for the murder trial,” said the prosecutor on the fourth day trial yesterday. DPP Ishak said the defence should concentrate on finding out if the article posted online was seditious or not and not if Altantuya was blasted or strangled. Gobind Singh said he needed to query Supt Gan for his client’s defence as this witness had lodged a police report over the alleged seditious article. “How to do that if we cannot ask question. Then withdraw the charge against Raja Petra and let the Shah Alam High Court decide the murder trial, maybe it will be favourable to us,” he contended. Gobind Singh said he needed to establish the basic point that the murder has angered Malaysians who have expressed their opinions and views on the case. Lawyer J. Chandra said further that it was crucial for the court to note that the first information report was made by Supt Gan after he (witness) read the alleged article online, analysed its content and found that part of the article had been "concocted". “This (police) report was made on April 30 when the Altantuya trial was still going on in Shah Alam,” he said. Chandra contended that Section 3(2) (b) of the Sedition Act gave the defence the right to say that “the publication shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency to point out errors in the administration of justice,” he said. The judge then said she would make a ruling on the line of questioning related to Altantuya trial on Monday. Earlier, the defence team also questioned the prosecution about an appendix to the sedition charge saying that it was not similar to the actual seditious article posted online. Gobind Singh said the article did not have the alleged heading of "Let’s send the Altantuya murderers to Hell". Chandra said the attached content of the article in the charge sheet was actually a product of re-typing and the photograph of Raja Petra was “cut and paste” in the appendix. DPP Ishak said he needed time to “observe and consider the charge”. The judge set Monday for continuation of the hearing. At the outset of hearing yesterday, Supt Gan told DPP Ishak that he had read the seditious article twice on April 30. He said he lodged a police report over the article upon finding that several issues raised in the article were untrue and concocted. He said he lodged another police report after detecting a mistake about the date the article was posted online. Supt Gan said he was later called by investigating officer DSP Mahfuz Abdul Majid to record his statement to assist in the investigation over his police reports. He said DSP Mahfuz also printed a copy of the seditious article where he (Supt Gan) later highlighted four aspects which he felt were untrue. He confirmed that the article was posted by Raja Petra on April 25 based on the date that appeared in the posting. Questioned by Gobind Singh, he agreed that he did not look at the truth of the whole article as a complainant of the case.