This is because the first accused, Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri, had admitted in his defence testimony that "what he did was on his own", deputy solicitor-general III Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah told the Court of Appeal.
Tun Abdul Majid (left), the number five in the Attorney-General’s Chambers, admitted that political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, who was acquitted of abetting in the murder, knew Najib.He also said that DSP Musa Safri was Najib's aide de camp (ADC).
"Just because Abdul Razak knew the then DPM and Musa, and the ADC worked with the DPM, you cannot attribute everything to the DPM.
"There is nothing to link the then-DPM to what Abdul Razak allegedly did, There is no imaginary evidence (showing this)," Tun Abdul Majid said in his submissions.
He
was responding to submissions from lawyers for Azilah and Corporal
Sirul Azhar Umar, members of the Special Action Unit of the police force
who are seeking acquittal.Azilah and Sirul Azhar were sentenced to death for murdering the 28-year-old Mongolian at a forest in Puncak Alam, near Shah Alam, between 10pm on Oct 19 and 1am on Oct 20, 2006.
Abdul Razak had sought Musa's help after Altantuya had tried to barge into the political analyst's home in Bukit Damansara several days before her murder.
Following that, Musa sent Azilah to Abdul Razak the next day, and the two met at Abdul Razak’s office.
There was no mention during the trial, or in today’s proceedings, about the purchase of two Scorpene submarines, a deal in which Altantuya is said to have acted as a translator for Abdul Razak’s Perimekar Sdn Bhd.
Yesterday, lawyers for Sirul had said the non-calling of Musa constituted a dent on the case against their client as it amounted to a mistrial.
This followed the Shah Alam High Court having accepted Abdul Razak’s affidavit and had not given the defence lawyers an opportunity to challenge the veracity of the political analyst’s reference to Musa in the affidavit.
Subsequently, the unchallenged affidavit resulted in the political analyst’s acquittal without his defence being called.
‘No need for Musa to testify’
Tun Abdul Majid said there is no purpose in calling Musa as a witness as it was only Azilah who met Abdul Razak at the latter’s office.
“Furthermore, Azilah had admitted in his defence that what he did was on his own (discretion) or his own budi bicara.”
“How would Musa be of significance? Hence, it is not necessary for Musa to testify,” he said.
The deputy solicitor-general III also asked why the prosecution should call Musa to test Abdul Razak’s credibility over what he had stated in the affidavit.
“He (Abdul Razak) is an accused person. Why should we apply to call Musa (left) to save Abdul Razak’s credibility as he is an accused person?”“Furthermore, there is testimony from the first witness, P Balasubramaniam, that Azilah and Sirul were the last persons seen with Altantuya on that fateful day when the private investigator handed her over to them (at Abdul Razak’s house),” he said.
For the prosecution, Tun Abdul Majid said, he does not see how this could lead to a gap in the prosecution’s case as alleged by the defence, since all witnesses had been called to testify on what actually happened.
When it was pointed out by the three-member bench that there was evidence of text messages sent and calls made by Abdul Razak to Musa and the defence did not know whether Musa had replied, Tun Majid said it was not necessary as it was not useful evidence.
‘Accused could have kept explosives’
On the issue of the explosives used to detonate Altantuya’s remains, Tun Abdul Majid said there was no evidence on the type of explosives used.
However, there was evidence that the two accused were trained in various explosives as this had been exposed to them during their training.
“Their superior, Assistant Commissioner Mastor Mohd Ariff, testified that they had undergone training with explosives and know how to handle them.
“There is a possibility, as one of the police witnesses had testified, that the two may have kept the unused explosives as they were not returned,” he said.
The submissions by the prosecution and defence ended today.
Justice Md Apandi Ali, who heads the three-member bench, deferred judgment to a date to be fixed.
No comments:
Post a Comment