By V. Anbalagan and Sharanjit Singh, New Straits Times
July 5, 2008
KUALA LUMPUR: Criminal lawyers said private investigator P. Balasubramaniam has committed an offence for making conflicting statutory declarations (SD) in relation to the ongoing Altantuya murder trial.
They also said the prosecution or the defence should recall Balasubramaniam to the stand as the contents of the first SD were related to the case.
Kuala Lumpur Bar criminal practice committee chairman N. Sivananthan said recalling Balasubramaniam to the witness stand was provided for under the law.
"Although prosecution had closed its case, it can still call witnesses because the trial judge had not heard submissions from the prosecution and defence," he said.
The court has fixed July 23 to hear submissions whether the prosecution had made out a prima facie case.
Two special action force officers -- Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar and Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri -- are currently being tried for the murder of Altantuya while political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda is being tried for abetment.
He said Balasubramaniam should be recalled because it was for the court to find out the truth.
Sivananthan said the court should allow the application to recall Balasubramaniam as his statement was relevant to the charge faced by Abdul Razak.
Lawyer Gurbachan Singh said a SD stood as truth as it was made under oath.
"Balasubramaniam's claim that he made the first SD under duress was a mere excuse.
"This is utter nonsense because he had a lawyer advising him. Moreover, the SD was made before a Commissioner for Oaths," he said.
He said no lawyer was going to draft a SD without his client's instruction.
"He is not a country bumpkin. He is an educated fellow who was an ex-police officer," the lawyer said.
"Just like a police report, one cannot withdraw a SD."
Gurbachan said the prosecution could recall Balasubramaniam in view of new information revealed in the first SD.
"You cannot blame the DPPs (in the Altantuya case) as what was revealed in the SD was not in their domain. Their questions to witnesses were formulated according to the contents in the witnesses' statements," he said.
Gurbachan said the blame solely was in the hands of the police.
Lawyer Mohamad Ramli Abdul Manan said Balasubramaniam made two contradictory statutory declarations. "Both cannot be true or false. One of it is definitely false."
Mohamad Ramli said whether Balasubramaniam was going to be prosecuted was another question.
He said Abdul Razak's defence team could call Balasubramaniam as their witness should the defence be called.
He said this was because Balasubramaniam's first SD appeared to favour Abdul Razak's case.
"But Balasubramaniam will have to explain why he made two conflicting SDs," he added.
In George Town, lawyer Karpal Singh said Balasubramaniam should be investigated under the Penal Code.
He said one cannot just make such a declaration and later withdraw it and such an act amounted to giving false evidence, an offence which carries a maximum of seven years' jail.
Karpal said it was baffling that the private investigator was now claiming he made the declaration under duress.
"What duress is he talking about. He has not given any details of the kind of duress under which he made it (the statutory declaration). The sting of his declaration is now gone," he said.
"I am acting on behalf on Altantuya Shaariibuu and the Mongolian government in her murder trial.
"The dramatic disclosure in the declaration is a serious matter which involves Malaysia's reputation," he said.
They also said the prosecution or the defence should recall Balasubramaniam to the stand as the contents of the first SD were related to the case.
Kuala Lumpur Bar criminal practice committee chairman N. Sivananthan said recalling Balasubramaniam to the witness stand was provided for under the law.
"Although prosecution had closed its case, it can still call witnesses because the trial judge had not heard submissions from the prosecution and defence," he said.
The court has fixed July 23 to hear submissions whether the prosecution had made out a prima facie case.
Two special action force officers -- Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar and Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri -- are currently being tried for the murder of Altantuya while political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda is being tried for abetment.
He said Balasubramaniam should be recalled because it was for the court to find out the truth.
Sivananthan said the court should allow the application to recall Balasubramaniam as his statement was relevant to the charge faced by Abdul Razak.
Lawyer Gurbachan Singh said a SD stood as truth as it was made under oath.
"Balasubramaniam's claim that he made the first SD under duress was a mere excuse.
"This is utter nonsense because he had a lawyer advising him. Moreover, the SD was made before a Commissioner for Oaths," he said.
He said no lawyer was going to draft a SD without his client's instruction.
"He is not a country bumpkin. He is an educated fellow who was an ex-police officer," the lawyer said.
"Just like a police report, one cannot withdraw a SD."
Gurbachan said the prosecution could recall Balasubramaniam in view of new information revealed in the first SD.
"You cannot blame the DPPs (in the Altantuya case) as what was revealed in the SD was not in their domain. Their questions to witnesses were formulated according to the contents in the witnesses' statements," he said.
Gurbachan said the blame solely was in the hands of the police.
Lawyer Mohamad Ramli Abdul Manan said Balasubramaniam made two contradictory statutory declarations. "Both cannot be true or false. One of it is definitely false."
Mohamad Ramli said whether Balasubramaniam was going to be prosecuted was another question.
He said Abdul Razak's defence team could call Balasubramaniam as their witness should the defence be called.
He said this was because Balasubramaniam's first SD appeared to favour Abdul Razak's case.
"But Balasubramaniam will have to explain why he made two conflicting SDs," he added.
In George Town, lawyer Karpal Singh said Balasubramaniam should be investigated under the Penal Code.
He said one cannot just make such a declaration and later withdraw it and such an act amounted to giving false evidence, an offence which carries a maximum of seven years' jail.
Karpal said it was baffling that the private investigator was now claiming he made the declaration under duress.
"What duress is he talking about. He has not given any details of the kind of duress under which he made it (the statutory declaration). The sting of his declaration is now gone," he said.
"I am acting on behalf on Altantuya Shaariibuu and the Mongolian government in her murder trial.
"The dramatic disclosure in the declaration is a serious matter which involves Malaysia's reputation," he said.