As promised, here are some comments on the recent finding that Gani Patail and Musa Hassan (Then: deputy public prosecutor and investigating officer in Anwar’s case. Now: attorney general and inspector general. Coincidence?).
Before I get into it, a comment on Nazri and his views on this new EAIC/SIAP bill:
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz had previously revealed that the proposed commission would not have decision making powers.
The commission can only make recommendations to the relevant authorities after completing its investigations.
“The relevant agencies will be given a time frame to act. If no action is taken, the findings of the investigation will then be made public,” he said.
“The police, for instance, would then be forced to take action due to strong public pressure.”
Nazri added that, according to the federal constitution, any punitive action against errant government officers can only be taken by the agencies concerned, and not by a new body such as Siap.
“(To do that) we have to amend the constitution but the government doesn’t have two-thirds majority in Parliament for this,” he said.
This, with respect, is stupid. If the police had even the slightest inclination to react to public pressure, there would never have been the call for the IPCMC.
Malaysians have strongly supported the IPCMC precisely because the police don’t give a rat’s ass about what we think. If they did would they rush candlelight vigilers singing Negaraku? Beat Kugan to death? For that matter, beat up the Deputy Prime Minister?
His last comment is also, for lack of a better word, stupid. He seems to think us foolish enough to believe that we have no IPCMC because the opposition had the gall to deny BN a two thirds majority :|
My dear Nazri, why don’t you table the IPCMC in its original form, and let the voting speak for itself.
Anyway, back to Musa and Gani (another perfect example why we need the IPCMC).
First, of the three ex-judges who acquited these ‘fine’ gentlemen (These are based on preliminary Google searches, and I am open to correction), Mohd. Noor Abdullah appears to be the judge that heard Lim Guan Eng’s sedition trial (the one where he was on the side of an underaged Malay girl who allegedly was a victim of statutory rape involving Rahim Thamby Chik).
Kadir Sulaiman’s name turned up as a member of Mahathir’s Kuala Lumpur War Crimes “Tribunal,” where in judges basically were “well-behaved” and acted in exactly the way Mahathir had expected them to throughout his political career - subservient with foregone conclusions.
A motley crew, I’d say. While these two facts may not be much onto themselves, I think it’s important to consider the allegations against Musa and Gani.
Here, I beg your (and MK’s) pardon if I take the easy way out. The easiest way to refresh your memory is to reproduce Anwar’s police report on the matter, and a MK report on the admission of a former policeman intimately involved in the case. Peruse these, and judge for yourself.
I, Anwar Ibrahim, hereby make the following police report based on information that I have recently received.
This report is in relation to the investigation into the assault on me by the former IGP Tan Sri Rahim Noor on 20 September 1998. I believe Tan Sri (Abdul) Rahim Noor, after being prosecuted, pleaded guilty to the assault. I had lodged a police report in respect of the assault on 27 September 1998.
2. In relation to the investigation into the assault, I believe that the investigating officer ACP Mat Zain Ibrahim (now Datuk Mat Zain) had conducted a thorough investigation and prepared an investigation paper (“IP”) which was presented by October 1998 to the former attorney-general, Tan Sri Mokhtar Abdullah and his team which included the current attorney-general Tan Sri Gani Patail for further action.
3. The said investigation paper concluded that Tan Sri Rahim Noor was the perpetrator of the assault on me. The said paper reached a conclusion after a thorough investigation which included medical reports by Hospital KL forensic specialists such as Dr Ab Halim Mansar and Dr Zahari Noor and statement from at least 60 witnesses. The medical reports concluded that the injury inflicted on me was consistent with an assault.
4. Despite the contents of the investigation paper and the medical reports already available, Tan Sri Mokhtar with the assistance of the current attorney-general, Tan Sri Gani Patail then obtained the services of another doctor whom I was informed to be one Dr Abdul Rahman Yusof.
5. Dr Rahman in an undated and second report speaks of a “reconstruction of the scene” on 14 December 2008. I believe that this so-called reconstruction of the scene never happened.
6. It is an undisputable fact that Dr Rahman’s reports in relation to the assault on me were done without actually even examining me at any time.
7. However, despite the IP and the already existing medical reports, Tan Sri Mokhtar in his press statement of 5 January 1999 appears to accept the views of Dr Rahman on the so-called “inconsistencies” in the other medical reports by the doctors who actually physically examined me.
8. Tan Sri Mokhtar’s press statement also states that the investigation which had been carried out did not identify the person or persons responsible for my injuries. This is inconsistent with the IP which had already concluded by October 1998 that it was Rahim Noor who assaulted me. Tan Sri Mokhtar and his team therefore had willfully misled the public. As the police investigation done by Mat Zain had apparently not led to any conclusion, there was a public outcry and demand for a royal commission which was then set up. Tan Sri Mokhtar also made a false statement that the IP was submitted to him on 19 November 1998. I believe that Tan Sri Gani Patail had full knowledge of the false contents of this press statement.
I believe Tan Sri Musa Hassan and Tan Sri Gani Patail were present in Bukit Aman on 20 September 1998 and knew about the assault by Tan Sri Rahim Noor on me. Tan Sri Musa and Tan Sri Gani further concealed the fact of the assault on me from the public until my black eye and injuries were revealed in court (photo, right).
10. I believe both Tan Sri Musa and Tan Sri Gani Patail were actively involved in the procuring of the second undated report by Dr Rahman which makes false and incredible conclusions such as “the pattern and nature of the injuries are not consistent with a direct blow”, “accidental nature of the injuries could not be ruled out” and “self-inflicted nature of the injury should be considered”. They gave the instructions to Dr Rahman to proceed to write this second report and were acting under the direction and/or jointly with Tan Sri Mokhtar Abdullah.
11. These facts show that Tan Sri Musa Hassan, Tan Sri Gani Patail and SAC II Datuk Mat Zain Ibrahim (who, according to Dr Rahman’s second report, accompanied him to the cell in Bukit Aman where I was detained and participated in the so-called reconstruction of the scene) conspired with Dr Rahman to procure the production of this second report. This was done so that my police report of 27 September 1998 in respect of the assault would be regarded as a false police report for which I could be charged, or at the very least, to damage my credibility, so as to affect my defence in the other criminal cases where I was charged for so-called “corruption” and sodomy to facilitate a conviction.
12. I wish to point out that Tan Sri Gani Patail was the senior prosecutor assisting Tan Sri Mokhtar in the prosecution against me. Tan Sri Musa Hassan was the investigating officer for my prosecution. I also believe, that in an unprecedented manner, an operation room specially for my prosecution was set up at Bukit Aman’s compound where all these individuals would meet regularly.
13. This is not the first time that allegations of fabricating evidence had surfaced in connection with Tan Sri Gani Patail. I am informed that in the Federal Court decision Zainur Zakaria v Public Prosecutor [2001] 3 MLJ, Steve Shim CJ in delivering his judgment pointed out that “… was he not justified, on a prima facie basis, in complaining that Tan Sri Gani Patail’s conduct at the meeting on 2 October 1998 was an attempt to get (KS) Nalla(karuppan) to fabricate evidence in order to perfect charges against him for other alleged sexual offences?” The references to “he” and “him” in that sentence are references to myself.
14. In relation to the above, I refer to the following documents which will be of assistance to the police:
* The press statement by Tan Sri Mokhtar issued on 5 January 1999.
* The notes of proceedings in the report of the royal commission of the evidence of Dr Rahman.
* The second undated report produced by Dr Rahman exhibited in the royal commission report.
15. I call for a fresh investigation into the fabrication of evidence in this case which I am advised is an offence contrary to section 192 of the Penal Code punishable up to 7 years’ imprisonment. I ask that all the persons who are implicated in the procuring of this second report by Dr Rahman i.e. Tan Sri Gani Patail, Tan Sri Musa Hassan, Dr Rahman and Datuk Mat Zain Ibrahim be investigated thoroughly so that the truth is known and the offending individuals punished.
Anwar Ibrahim
1 July 2008
*
Ex-cop: How AG interfered in ‘black eye’ case
Beh Lih Yi | Oct 10, 08 1:14pm
A retired senior police officer who probed the infamous ‘black eye’ incident involving Anwar Ibrahim in 1998 has made startling claims on how attorney-general (AG) Abdul Gani Patail allegedly tampered with evidence in the case.
In a set of court documents revealed this week, Mat Zain Ibrahim implied that the actions of Abdul Gani, then a senior deputy public prosecutor, delayed the investigation process and concealed facts from then AG, the late Mohtar Abdullah.
Malaysiakini contacted Abdul Gani’s office for comments today, but has yet to receive a response to the voice-mail message.
Mat Zain, who had led the investigation team, made his revelations in a 18-page statement of claim in a RM30 million defamation suit that he filed against Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim on Aug 11, in the Shah Alam High Court. Mat Zain retired from the police force in 2001.
He claimed he had been defamed in Anwar’s police report lodged on July 1 implying that he had fabricated evidence relating to the ‘black eye’ incident (left), in cooperation with Abdul Gani and inspector-general of police (IGP) Musa Hassan (while a senior investigation officer in 1998).
In his statement of claim, Mat Zain pleaded innocence to Anwar’s claims and instead pointed the finger at Abdul Gani by recounting how the latter had allegedly interfered in the case.
Mat Zain’s claims were first made public on Wednesday, during Anwar’s sodomy trial in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court. Anwar’s lawyer Sulaiman Abdullah had read out the document in court during submissions on why Abdul Gani should not be involved in any aspect of the sodomy case.
However, the media was told not to report the details pending the court’s decision on the admissibility of the evidence. The gag order was lifted yesterday.
According to the document, Mat Zain was instructed on Sept 27, 1998 by then IGP Abdul Rahim Mohd Noor (left) to head an investigation team, after Anwar lodged a report that day that he had been beaten up while in police custody, thereby sustaining injuries including a ‘black eye’.
Mat Zain said he had immediately instructed two forensic experts, Dr Halim Mansar and Dr Zahari Noor, from the Kuala Lumpur Hospital to examine Anwar.
Abdul Rahim met him privately that night and told him to conduct an in-depth investigation and “to leave no stone unturned” in order to uphold the image of the police force, he said in the document written in Bahasa Malaysia.
“I was ordered to only brief Rahim and (Mohtar) on the progress of the investigation and given the assurance that no other senior police officer will disrupt me in carrying out my duty.”
A similar message was conveyed to Mat Zain in a meeting with then premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad (right) about two weeks later, to brief the latter on the progress of the investigation.
“During that meeting, I explained what actually happened to Anwar and identified the person who hurt him.
“The prime minister advised me that there should be no cover-up in the probe and stated that the government may set up an independent commission to investigate the case if there is any attempt to cover up the incident; (and if a commission had to be appointed) would tarnish not only the credibility of the police force but also mine,” the document added.
On Oct 16, 1998, Mat Zain said he met with Abdul Gani to hand over his first investigation report, after directed to liaise with him because Mokhtar was busy with official duties.
Gani’s role explained
Abdul Gani’s alleged interference came into the picture when Mat Zain alleged in his court document that:
- A questionable medical report was prepared by one Dr Abdul Rahman Yusof, allegedly on Abdul Gani’s order.
Mat Zain stated that he found out there was an attempt to “insert irrelevant and suspicious statements” into the investigation report, especially in relation to “Abdul Rahman’s report which was done on the instructions of Abdul Gani”. Mat Zain said he was confident that Abdul Rahman has never examined Anwar physically.
- Mat Zain claimed he had obtained information that Abdul Gani was on the 30th floor of the federal police headquarters in Bukit Aman when Anwar was assaulted and he believed Abdul Gani knew of the incident either at the time or soon after.
- On Oct 30, 1998, Mat Zain personally handed over his second investigation paper and report to Abdul Gani, and briefed him on the details. Among the conclusions were that the Anwar’s injury was consistent with assault and not self-inflicted; and that Abdul Rahim was the person who caused the injury.
- Although two investigation reports had been given to Abdul Gani on Oct 26 and 30 respectively, Mohtar was quoted in the media on Nov 7 as saying that his chambers had not received any such report.
- It was only on Nov 20 that Mohtar reportedly said he had received the report. Mat Zain said he believed Mohtar’s statement was made after he (Mat Zain) had “pressured” Abdul Gani a day earlier to confirm the status of his two reports.
- On Nov 25, Musa informed Mat Zain that Mohtar wanted to meet him (Mat Zain) at Bukit Aman and to visit the lock-up where Anwar was held. Musa and Abdul Gani were present during the visit.
- Mat Zain later found out that Abdul Rahman’s second medical report had mentioned there was a visit to the lock-up (where Anwar was held) and a “reconstruction of the incidence”, where Mat Zain was named as the person who had accompanied Abdul Rahman to the lock-up. Mat Zain denied this had ever taken place.
- On Jan 6, 1999, Mohtar (left) had reportedly said Mat Zain’s investigations were incomplete and that the latter had yet to identify the perpetrator (despite the findings given to Abdul Gani on Oct 30, 1998).
- Mat Zain said he “believed Abdul Gani concealed important facts from Mohtar’s knowledge” and had personally appointed Abdul Rahman as the medical officer to prepare the report in October 1998. His conclusion was based on the fact that Mohtar had only appointed Abdul Rahman two months later.
- Mat Zain said Abdul Rahman later testified before the royal commission on the ‘black eye’ incident in March 1999 and gave conflicting statements with regard to his own findings. The proceedings came to an end when Abdul Rahim admitted that he had caused the injury to Anwar.
At the end of his court document, Mat Zain vehemently denied Anwar’s accusation that he had plotted any fabrication of evidence with Abdul Gani and Musa.
“The truth is I had acted to the best of my abilities to prevent any party from influencing me to do anything unlawful while investigating Anwar’s injury,” Mat Zain said.
Musa filed a defamation suit against Anwar on July 21 while Abdul Gani has threatened to do the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment