Angkatan Muda Keadilan Kota Bharu

Berikut adalah butiran Ceramah Perdana Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim di Negeri Sembilan, Kelantan dan Kedah pada hujung minggu ini (10-12 Julai):

Negeri Sembilan

Tarikh: 10/7/2008, Khamis

Tempat: Dataran Muhibah, Kg Ismail Batu 2, Jalan Pantai, Seremban

Penceramah: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, YB Anthony Loke (Ahli Parlimen Rasah), YB Saifuddin Nasution (Ahli Parlimen Machang), YB Dato Kamaruddin (Ahli Parlimen Teluk Kemang)

Untuk Dihubungi: Sabaruddin 017 246 2237, Chai 016 6313232

Negeri Kelantan

Tarikh: 11/7/2008, Jumaat

Tempat: Putik, Pengkala Chepa

Penceramah: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim , Tok Guru Nik Aziz (MB Kelantan), YB Datuk Husam (Adun Kijang), YB Saifuddin Nasution (Ahli Parlimen Machang)

Negeri Kedah

Tarikh: 12/7/2008, Sabtu

Tempat: Stadium Sultan Abdul Halim, Suka Menanti, Alor Setar

Penceramah: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim , Senator Zamri Yusuf, Ustaz Azizan (MB Kedah), Dato’ Seri Haji Abdul Hadi Awang

Ketua Umum KeADILan Anwar Ibrahim memfailkan tuntutan syaraiah terhadap Saiful Bukhari Azlan dibawah Seksyen 41 ‘Qazaf’ Akta 559 Kesalahan Jenayah Syariah 1997 di Jabatan Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan (Jawi).

Anwar memfailkan tuntutan tersebut pada jam 10.15 pagi tadi bersama peguam Ahmad Shabrimi Mohamed Sidek dan Kamar Ainiah Kamaruzaman.

Seksyen 41 ‘Qazaf’ secara spesifik menyentuh persoalan tuduhan zina, dan menurut hukum syarak, Saiful menghadapi penjara tidak melebihi tiga tahun atau denda tidak melebihi lima ribu ringgit, atau kedua-duanya, sekiranya gagal mengemukakan empat orang saksi lelaki atau iqrar tertuduh.

“Atas nasihat ulama dan peguam, saya telah membuat aduan kepada bahagian penguatkuasaan, membersihkan nama saya dan keluarga daripada fitnah jahat dan mengaibkan ini,” kata Anwar.

“Dan saya dinasihatkan membawa kes ini mengikut undang-undang peruntukan qazaf. Jadi, (saya) minta bahagian penguatkuasaan buat siasatan segera.”

Parlimen, 7 Julai (SK) – Pakatan Rakyat hari ini mendesak Perdana Menteri, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi untuk menggantung timbalannya, Najib Tun Razak bagi tujuan memberi laluan penyiasatan terhadap tuduhan dan akuan bersumpah ke atas beliau dalam isu berkaitan pembunuhan wanita warga Mongolia, Altantuya Sharibuu.

Perkara itu ditegaskan Khalid Samad (PAS-Shah Alam) yang merujuk kepada tindakan Menteri Besar Selangor, Khalid Ibrahim yang bertindak tegas menggantung Pegawai Tugas-tugas Khas beliau berikutan tuduhan rasuah dan salahguna kuasa dalam menyerahkan kontrak pungutan sampah bagi memudahkan siasatan dilakukan.

Selain itu, Khalid juga mengambil contoh tindakan yang ‘terpaksa’ diterima Anwar Ibrahim ketika memegang jawatan yang sama telah dipecat Tun Dr. Mahathir sepuluh tahun lalu berikutan terdapat tuduhan melakukan kesalahan liwat dan salahguna kuasa.

“Mengapa ketika itu Anwar terpaksa dipecat tetapi Najib tidak dilakukan dengan tindakan yang sama. Setidak-tidaknya beliau perlu digantung bagi memudahkan proses siasatan dilakukan” tegas Khalid sewaktu memulakan ucapan perbahasan beliau dalam sesi perbahasan usul kajian separuh penggal Rancangan Malaysia ke-9 (RMK-9).

Gesaan beliau itu mendapat bantahan hebat ahli-ahli parlimen BN termasuklah Khairy Jamaluddin (BN-Rembau) yang juga menantu kepada Perdana Menteri.

Parlimen 8 Julai (SK) – Dewan hari ini diberitahu bahawa keuntungan sebelum cukai yang diperolehi syarikat Independent Power Produser (IPP) pada tahun kewangan 2006/2007 adalah sejumlah RM7,630,629 juta.

Jumlah itu dikemukakan Timbalan Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Devamany S. Krishnasamy (BN-Cameron Highland) dalam jawapan kepada soalan yang dikemukakan Lim Guan Eng (DAP-Bagan) dalam sesi soalan jawab lisan.

Meskipun pada soalan asalnya Guan Eng turut meminta menteri berkenaan mendedahkan jumlah subsidi gas terhadap IPP yang terpaksa ditangguh kerajaan namun menteri berkenaan tidak menjelaskan perkara itu dalam jawapannya.

Walaubagaimanapun, setelah digesa Guan Eng, menteri itu akhirnya mendedahkan perkara tersebut dengan menyatakan nilai subsidi yang disumbangkan kepada syarikat itu adalah sejumlah RM35,695 juta setahun.

Nilai ini berdasarkan harga jualan gas kepada syarikat itu, sebanyak 70% lebih rendah daripada harga pasaran. Subsidi tersebut hanya akan dikurangkan 5% setiap tahun mulai Julai 2008 sehingga dihapuskan sepenuhnya 15 tahun dari sekarang.

Dengan keuntungan yang begitu besar serta diberikan ganjaran subsidi yang begitu tinggi (70%), jelaslah kenyataan Guan Eng dalam soalan tambahannya bahawa kerajaan BN memelihara kroni-kroni melalui syarikat IPP itu.

Berikutan adalah teks penuh P Balasubramaniam yang didedahkan pada pagi 3 Julai, 2008 di sidang media di ibupejabat Parti Keadilan Rakyat.

STATUTORY DECLARATION

I, Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal a Malaysian Citizen of full age and residing at xxxx do solemly and sincerely declare as follows :-

1. I have been a police officer with the Royal Malaysian Police Force having jointed as a constable in 1981 attached to the Police Field Force. I was then promoted to the rank of lance Corporal and finally resigned from the Police Force in 1998 when I was with the Special Branch.

2. I have been working as a free lance Private Investigator since I left the Police Force.

3. Sometime in June or July 2006, I was employed by Abdul Razak Baginda for a period of 10 days to look after him at his office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang between the hours of 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m each working day as apparently he was experiencing disturbances from a third party.

4. I resigned from this job after 2 ½ days as I was not receiving any proper instructions.

5. I was however re-employed by Abdul Razak Baginda on the 05-10-2006 as he had apparently received a harassing phone call from a Chinese man calling himself ASP Tan who had threatened him to pay his debts. I later found out this gentleman was in fact a private investigator called Ang who was employed by a Mongolian woman called Altantuya Shaaribuu.

6. Abdul Razak Baginda was concerned that a person by the name of Altantuya Shaaribuu, a Mongolian woman, was behind this threat and that she would be arriving in Malaysia very soon to try and contact him.

7. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he was concerned by this as he had been advised that Altantuya Shaaribuu had been given some powers by a Mongolian ‘bomoh’ and that he could never look her in the face because of this.

8. When I enquired as to who this Mongolian woman was, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that she was a friend of his who had been introduced to him by a VIP and who asked him to look after her financially.

9. I advised him to lodge a police report concerning the threatening phone call he had received from the Chinese man known as ASP Tan but he refused to do so as he informed me there were some high profile people involved.

10. Abdul Razak Baginda further told me that Altantuya Shaaribuu was a great liar and good in convincing people. She was supposed to have been very demanding financially and that he had even financed a property for her in Mongolia.

11. Abdul Razak Baginda then let me listen to some voice messages on his handphone asking him to pay what was due otherwise he would be harmed and his daughter harassed.

12. I was therefore supposed to protect his daughter Rowena as well.

13. On the 09.10.2006 I received a phone call from Abdul Razak Baginda at about 9.30 a.m. informing me that Altantuya was in his office and he wanted me there immediately. As I was in the midst of a surveillance, I sent my assistant Suras to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office and I followed a little later. Suras managed to control the situation and had persuaded Altantuya and her two friends to leave the premises. However Altantuya left a note written on some Hotel Malaya note paper, in English, asking Abdul Razak Baginda to call her on her handphone (number given) and wrote down her room number as well.

14. Altantuya had introduced herself to Suras as ‘Aminah’ and had informed Suras she was there to see her boyfriend Abdul Razak Baginda.

15. These 3 Mongolian girls however returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang again, the next day at about 12.00 noon. They did not enter the building but again informed Suras that they wanted to meet Aminah’s boyfriend, Abdul Razak Baginda.

16. On the 11.10.2006, Aminah returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office on her own and gave me a note to pass to him, which I did. Abdul Razak Baginda showed me the note which basically asked him to call her urgently.

17. I suggested to Abdul Razak Baginda that perhaps it may be wise to arrange for Aminah to be arrested if she harassed him further, but he declined as he felt she would have to return to Mongolia as soon as her cash ran out.

18. In the meantime I had arranged for Suras to perform surveillance on Hotel Malaya to monitor the movements of these 3 Mongolian girls, but they recognized him. Apparently they become friends with Suras after that and he ended up spending a few nights in their hotel room.

19. When Abdul Razak Baginda discovered Suras was becoming close to Aminah he asked me to pull him out from Hotel Malaya.

20. On the 14.10.2006, Aminah turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights when I was not there. Abdul Razak Baginda called me on my handphone to inform me of this so I rushed back to his house. As I arrived, I noticed Aminah outside the front gates shouting “Razak, bastard, come out from the house”. I tried to calm her down but couldn’t so I called the police who arrived in 2 patrol cars. I explained the situation to the police, who took her away to the Brickfields police station.

21. I followed the patrol cars to Brickfields police station in a taxi. I called Abdul Razak Baginda and his lawyer Dirren to lodge a police report but they refused.

22. When I was at the Brickfields police station, Aminah’s own Private Investigator, one Mr. Ang arrived and we had a discussion. I was told to deliver a demand to Abdul Razak Baginda for USD$500,000.00 and 3 tickets to Mongolia, apparently as commission owed to Aminah from a deal in Paris.

23. As Aminah had calmed down at this stage, a policewoman at the Brickfields police station advised me to leave and settle the matter amicably.

24. I duly informed Abdul Razak Baginda of the demands Aminah had made and told him I was disappointed that no one wanted to back me up in lodging a police report. We had a long discussion about the situation when I expressed a desire to pull out of this assignment.

25. During this discussion and in an attempt to persuade me to continue my employment with him, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that :-

25.1 He had been introduced to Aminah by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.

25.2 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Aminah and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse.

25.3 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak wanted Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Aminah as he did not want her to harass him since he was now the Deputy Prime Minister.

25.4 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had all been together at a dinner in Paris.

25.5 Aminah wanted money from him as she felt she was entitled to a USD$500,000.00 commission on a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris.

26. On the 19.10.2006, I arrived at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights to begin my night duty. I had parked my car outside as usual. I saw a yellow proton perdana taxi pass by with 3 ladies inside, one of whom was Aminah. The taxi did a U-turn and stopped in front of the house where these ladies rolled down the window and wished me ‘Happy Deepavali’. The taxi then left.

27. About 20 minutes later the taxi returned with only Aminah in it. She got out of the taxi and walked towards me and started talking to me. I sent an SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda informing him “Aminah was here”. I received an SMS from Razak instructing me “To delay her until my man comes”.

28. Whist I was talking to Aminah, she informed me of the following :-

28.1 That she met Abdul Razak Baginda in Singapore with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

28.2 That she had also met Abdul Razak Baginda and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a dinner in Paris.

28.3 That she was promised a sum of USD$500,000.00 as commission for assisting in a Submarine deal in Paris.

28.4 That Abdul Razak Baginda had bought her a house in Mongolia but her brother had refinanced it and she needed money to redeem it.

28.5 That her mother was ill and she needed money to pay for her treatment.

28.6. That Abdul Razak Baginda had married her in Korea as her mother is Korean whilst her father was a Mongolian/Chinese mix.

28.7 That if I wouldn’t allow her to see Abdul Razak Baginda, would I be able to arrange for her to see Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

29. After talking to Aminah for about 15 minutes, a red proton aeroback arrived with a woman and two men. I now know the woman to be Lance Corporal Rohaniza and the men, Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azahar. They were all in plain clothes. Azilah walked towards me while the other two stayed in the car.

30. Azilah asked me whether the woman was Aminah and I said ‘Yes’. He then walked off and made a few calls on his handphone. After 10 minutes another vehicle, a blue proton saga, driven by a Malay man, passed by slowly. The drivers window had been wound down and the driver was looking at us.

31. Azilah then informed me they would be taking Aminah away. I informed Aminah they were arresting her. The other two persons then got out of the red proton and exchanged seats so that Lance Corporal Rohaniza and Aminah were in the back while the two men were in the front. They drove off and that is the last I ever saw of Aminah.

32. Abdul Razak Baginda was not at home when all this occurred.

33. After the 19.10.2006, I continued to work for Abdul Razak Baginda at his house in Damansara Heights from 7.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. the next morning, as he had been receiving threatening text messages from a woman called ‘Amy’ who was apparently ‘Aminah’s’ cousin in Mongolia.

34. On the night of the 20.10.2006, both of Aminah’s girl friends turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house enquiring where Aminah was. I informed them she had been arrested the night before.

35. A couple of nights later, these two Mongolian girls, Mr. Ang and another Mongolian girl called ‘Amy’ turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house looking for Aminah as they appeared to be convinced she was being held in the house.

36. A commotion began so I called the police who arrived shortly thereafter in a patrol car. Another patrol car arrived a short while later in which was the investigating officer from the Dang Wangi Police Station who was in charge of the missing persons report lodged by one of the Mongolians girls, I believe was Amy.

37. I called Abdul Razak Baginda who was at home to inform him of the events taking place at his front gate. He then called DSP Musa Safri and called me back informing me that Musa Safri would be calling handphone and I was to pass the phone to the Inspector from Dang Wangi Police Station.

38. I then received a call on my handphone from Musa Safri and duly handed the phone to the Dang Wangi Inspector. The conversation lasted 3 – 4 minutes after which he told the girls to disperse and to go to see him the next day.

39. On or about the 24.10.2006, Abdul Razak Baginda instructed me to accompany him to the Brickfields police station as he had been advised to lodge a police report about the harassment he was receiving from these Mongolian girls.

40. Before this, Amy had sent me an SMS informing me she was going to Thailand to lodge a report with the Mongolian consulate there regarding Aminah’s disappearance. Apparently she had sent the same SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda. This is why he told me he had been advised to lodge a police report.

41. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that DPS Musa Safri had introduced him to one DSP Idris, the head of the Criminal division, Brickfields police station, and that Idris had referred him to ASP Tonny.

42. When Abdul Razak Baginda had lodged his police report at Brickfields police station, in front of ASP Tonny, he was asked to make a statement but he refused as he said he was leaving for overseas. He did however promise to prepare a statement and hand ASP Tonny a thumb drive. I know that this was not done as ASP Tonny told me.

43. However ASP Tonny asked me the next day to provide my statement instead and so I did.

44. I stopped working for Abdul Razak Baginda on the 26.10.2006 as this was the day he left for Hong Kong on his own.

45. In mid November 2006, I received a phone call from ASP Tonny from the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah asking me to see him regarding Aminah’s case. When I arrived there I was immediately arrested under S.506 of the Penal Code for Criminal intimidation.

46. I was then placed in the lock up and remanded for 5 days. On the third day I was released on police bail.

47. At the end of November 2006, the D9 department of the IPK sent a detective to my house to escort me to the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah. When I arrived, I was told I was being arrested under S.302 of the Penal Code for murder. I was put in the lock up and remanded for 7 days.

48. I was transported to Bukit Aman where I was interrogated and questioned about an SMS I had received from Abdul Razak Baginda on the 19.10.2006 which read “delay her until my man arrives”. They had apparently retrieved this message from Abdul Razak Baginda’s handphone.

49. They then proceeded to record my statement from 8.30 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. everyday for 7 consecutive days. I told them all I knew including everything Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had told me about their relationships with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak but when I came to sign my statement, these details had been left out.

50. I have given evidence in the trial of Azilah, Sirul and Abdul Razak Baginda at the Shah Alam High Court. The prosecutor did not ask me any questions in respect of Aminah’s relationship with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak or of the phone call I received from DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC for Datuk Seri Najib Razak and/or his wife.

51. On the day Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested, I was with him at his lawyers office at 6.30 a.m. Abdul Razak Baginda informed us that he had sent Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak an SMS the evening before as he refused to believe he was to be arrested, but had not received a response.

52. Shortly thereafter, at about 7.30 a.m., Abdul Razak Baginda received an SMS from Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and showed, this message to both myself and his lawyer. This message read as follows :- “ I am seeing IGP at 11.00 a.m. today …… matter will be solved … be cool”.

53. I have been made to understand that Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested the same morning at his office in the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang.

54. The purpose of this Statutory declaration is to :-

54.1 State my disappointment at the standard of investigations conducted by the authorities into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.

54.2 Bring to the notice of the relevant authorities the strong possibility that there are individuals other than the 3 accused who must have played a role in the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.

54.3 Persuade the relevant authorities to reopen their investigations into this case immediately so that any fresh evidence may be presented to the Court prior to submissions at the end of the prosecutions case.

54.4 Emphasize the fact that having been a member of the Royal Malaysian Police Force for 17 years I am absolutely certain no police officer would shoot someone in the head and blow up their body without receiving specific instructions from their superiors first.

54.5. Express my concern that should the defence not be called in the said murder trial, the accused, Azilah and Sirul will not have to swear on oath and testify as to the instructions they received and from whom they were given.

55. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960.


SUBCRIBED and solemnly )

declared by the abovenamed )

Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal ]

this day of 2008 )


Before me,







………………………………….

Commissioner for Oath

Kuala Lumpur

Saya, Anwar bin Ibrahim, sesungguhnya di sini membuat laporan polis berikut berdasarkan maklumat yang telah saya perolehi baru-baru ini.

1. Laporan ini adalah berkaitan dengan siasatan terdahap serangan fizikal yang dilakukan ke atas saya oleh bekas Ketua Polis Negara, Tan Sri Rahim Noor (“Rahim Noor”) pada 20hb September 1998. Saya percaya Tan Sri Rahim Noor, selepas didakwa, telah mengaku bersalah atas tuduhan serangan fizikal tersebut. Saya telah membuat laporan polis berkenaan serangan fizikal tersebut pada 27.9.98. 2. Berkaitan dengan penyiasatan terhadap serangan fizikal tersebut, saya percaya bahawa Pegawai Penyiasat, ACP Mat Zain bin Ibrahim (sekarang Datuk Mat Zain) telah melakukan satu penyiasatan yang mendalam dan menyeluruh dan menyediakan satu kertas siasatan (“IP”) yang telah kemudiannya pada Oktober 1998, menyerahkannya kepada bekas Peguam Negara, Tan Sri Mokhtar Abdullah (“Tan Sri Mokhtar”) serta pasukannya yang antaranya termasuklah Peguam Negara sekarang Tan Sri Gani Patail untuk tindakan lanjut.

3. Kertas siasatan tersebut telah menyimpulkan bahawa Tan Sri Rahim Noor adalah pelaku serangan fizikal tersebut ke atas saya. Kertas tersebut telah membuat kesimpulan setelah siasatan menyeluruh dilakukan, dengan mengambilkira laporan perubatan daripada pakar forensik daripada Hospital Kuala Lumpur seperti Dr. Ab. Halim Haji Mansar dan Dr. Zahari bin Noor dan kenyataan dari sekurang-kurangnya 60 orang saksi. Laporan perubatan tersebut menyimpulkan bahawa kesan kecederaan yang dilakukan ke atas saya adalah konsisten dengan satu serangan fizikal.

4. Walaupun kandungan kertas siasatan dan lapuran perubatan yang tersedia, Tan Sri Mokhtar dengan bantuan Peguam Negara hari ini dan, Tan Sri Gani Patail telah mendapatkan khidmat seorang pegawai perubatan bernama Dr. Abdul Rahman bin Yusof (Dr. Abdul Rahman).

5. Dr. Abdul Rahman dalam satu laporan tidak bertarikh menyediakan laporan kedua yang menyentuh “lakonan semula tempat kejadian” pada 14 Disember 1998. Saya percaya bahawa “lakonan semula tempat kejadian” tersebut tidak pernah berlaku.

6. Adalah satu fakta yang tidak disangkalkan bahawa laporan perubatan Dr Abdul Rahman berhubung serangan yang dilakukan terhadap saya disediakan tanpa langsung melakukan pemeriksaan fizikal ke atas saya terlebih dahulu.

7. Walaupun sudah ada kertas siasatan dan laporan kesihatan yang lengkap, Tan Sri Mokhtar dalam kenyataan akhbarnya bertarikh 5 Januari 1999, menerima pandangan yang diberikan oleh Dr. Abdul Rahman mengenai apa yang dikatakan sebagai “perkara-perkara tidak konsisten” dalam laporan perubatan doktor-doktor lain yang telah menjalankan pemeriksaan fizikal ke atas saya.

8. Kenyataan akhbar Tan Sri Mokhtar juga menyatakan siasatan yang telah dijalankan tidak dapat mengenalpasti individu atau mereka yang menyebabkan kecederaan ke atas saya. Ini sesungguhnya bercanggah dengan laporan siasatan yang selesai dilakukan menjelang Oktober 1998 yang menyimpulkan bahawa Rahim Noor menyerang saya. Tan Sri Mokhtar dan pasukannya dengan itu telah secara sengaja mengelirukan masyarakat. Apabila siasatan polis menjadi tidak lengkap, orang ramai menjadi resah dan menuntut ditubuhkan satu Suruhanjaya Siasatan Diraja. Tan Sri Mokhtar juga telah membuat kenyataan palsu bahawa kertas siasatan telah diserahkan kepada beliau hanya pada 19.11.98. Saya percaya Tan Sri Gani Patail ada makluman penuh tentang kenyataan palsu yang terkandung dalam kenyataan akhbar tersebut.

9. Saya juga percaya Tan Sri Musa Hassan dan Tan Sri Gani Patail telah hadir di Bukit Aman pada 20 September 1998 dan mengetahui mengenai serangan Tan Sri Rahim Noor terhadap saya. Tan Sri Musa dan Tan Sri Gani selanjutnya menyembunyikan fakta mengenai serangan terhadap saya dari pengetahuan umum sehinggalah mata saya yang lebam dan kecederaan yang saya alami didedahkan di mahkamah.

10. Saya percaya kedua-dua Tan Sri Musa dan Tan Sri Gani Patail secara aktif terlibat dalam menyediakan lapuran kedua tidak bertarikh oleh Dr. Abdul Rahman yang telah membuat kesimpulan palsu dan pelik seperti “the pattern and nature of the injuries are not consistent with a direct blow” [“bentuk dan ciri kecederaan adalah tidak konsisten dengan pukulan secara langsung”], “accidental nature of the injuries could not be ruled out” [“kemungkinan kecederaan ini disebabkan oleh kemalangan tidak boleh ditolak”] dan “self-inflicted nature of the injury should be considered” [kemungkinan kecederaan disebabkan perbuatan sendiri harus diberikan pertimbangan”]. Mereka mengarahkan Dr. Abdul Rahman untuk menyediakan lapuran kedua ini dan bertindak di bawah pengarahan dan/atau bersama Tan Sri Mokhtar Abdullah.

11. Semua fakta-fakta ini menunjukkan Tan Sri Musa Hassan, Tan Sri Gani Patail dan SAC II Datuk Mat Zain bin Ibrahim (individu, yang menurut Dr. Abdul Rahman dalam lapurannya, telah mengiringi beliau ke sel di Bukit Aman di mana saya ditahan dan terlibat dalam apa yang didakwa ‘lakonan semula tempat kejadian’) telah berpakat dengan Dr. Abdul Rahman untuk menyediakan lapuran kedua ini. Ini telah dilakukan agar lapuran polis saya bertarikh 27.9.98 mengenai serangan tersebut akan dikira sebagai lapuran polis palsu dan saya boleh didakwa, atau sekurang-kurangnya merosakkan kredibiliti saya bagi memberi kesan buruk terhadap pembelaan saya dalam kes-kes jenayah yang mana saya telah didakwa melakukan ‘korupsi’ dan liwat bagi membolehkan saya didapati bersalah.

12. Saya ingin menyatakan bahawa Tan Sri Gani Patail adalah pegawai pendakwa kanan yang membantu Tan Sri Mokhtar dalam membuat pendakwaan ke atas saya. Tan Sri Musa Hassan adalah Pegawai Penyiasat dalam pendakwaan terhadap saya. Saya juga percaya, satu tindakan yang tidak pernah dibuat sebelum ini telah diambil apabila satu bilik operasi khusus telah disediakan di Bukit Aman untuk menguruskan pendakwaan saya dan di mana mereka akan berjumpa secara kerap.

13. Ini bukanlah kali pertama dakwaan mengenai pemalsuan bukti dibuat berkaitan Tan Sri Gani Patail. Saya dimaklumkan bahawa dalam keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan Zainur bin Zakaria v Public Prosecutor [2001] 3 MLJ, Steve Shim, Hakim Besar, dalam penghakiman beliau menyatakan bahawa “… was he not justified, on a prima facie basis, in complaining that Tan Sri Gani Patail’s conduct at the meeting on 2.10.1998 was an attempt to get Nalla to fabricate evidence in order to perfect charges against him for other alleged sexual offences?”

Perkataan “he” dan “him” dalam ayat di atas merujuk kepada diri saya.

14. Berkenaan perkara di atas, saya merujuk kepada dokumen berkenaan bagi membantu siasatan polis:

1. Kenyataan akhbar Tan Sri Mokhtar yang dibuat pada 5.1.99.
2. Nota prosiding dalam lapuran Suruhanjaya DiRaja berkaitan keterangan Dr Abdul Rahman
3. Laporan Kesihatan kedua yang dibuat oleh Dr. Abdul Rahman yang terkandung dalam lapuran Suruhanjaya.

15. Saya memohon diadakan satu siasatan baru terhadap pemalsuan bukti yang mana saya telah dinasihati sebagai satu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 192 Kanun Keseksaan yang boleh membawa hukuman penjara 7 tahun. Saya memohon agar setiap individu yang terlibat dalam menyediakan laporan kedua oleh Dr Abdul Rahman ini iaitu Tan Sri Gani Patail, Tan Sri Musa Hassan, Dr. Rahman dan Datuk Mat Zain bin Ibrahim disiasat secara terperinci agar kebenaran diperolehi dan sebarang salah laku dihukum.

ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM

1 Julai 2008

KUALA LUMPUR, 3 Julai (SK) - Ketua Umum KeADILan, Anwar Ibrahim mendedahkan Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Najib Razak telah memperkenalkan Altantuya kepada Razak Baginda ketika di Pameran Berlian di Singapura.

berikut adalah kenyataan Anwar Ibrahim

Press Statement - for immediate release —

3 July 2008, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia

Today we witness another episode of a consistent pattern of abuse of power and manipulation of the criminal justice system.

Recently one of the witnesses in the Altantuya trial approached us with detailed information of events connected to her disappearance and murder. The information was shocking.

Mr. P. Balasubramaniam, who was engaged by Abdul Razak Baginda as a private investigator was advised to seek legal counsel and document his story independently.

Today he is releasing a statutory declaration dated 1st July 2008 to the public detailing the story that he has to tell about what actually happened and what was told to him by key personalities in this saga including Abdul Razak Baginda and Altantuya herself.

These revelations speak for themselves. They reveal, amongst others, the following allegations:

1. Mr. Balasubramaniam was engaged by Abdul Razak Baginda to deal with alleged harassment by Altantuya in relation to debts owed to her (Paragraph 5 and 6).
2. Altantuya was promised a commission of USD 500,000 for assisting in a submarine deal in Paris (Paragraph 22, Paragraph 25.5 and Paragraph 28.2 and 28.3 ).
3. Altantuya was introduced to Razak Baginda by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore ( Paragraph 25.5 and Paragraph 28.1).
4. Altantuya, Datuk Seri Najib and Razak Baginda had all been seen together at a dinner in Paris (Paragraph 28.2).
5. After the disappearance of Altantuya, a commotion took place in front of Razak Baginda’s house several days after 20 December 2006 where girl friends of Altantuya and one Mr.Ang (Altantuya’s own private investigator) arrived searching for Altantuya. Balasubramaniam had to call the police. A patrol car arrived shortly. Shortly thereafter an investigating officer from Dang Wangi Police Station who was handling the missing persons report lodged by one of Altantuya’s girl friends arrived. Balasubramaniam then informed Razak Baginda who was at home to inform him of the events taking place at his front gate. Razak then called one DSP Musa Safri who called him back informing him that Musa would be calling him on his handphone and that he was to pass the phone to the inspector from Dang Wangi Police station. Balasubramaniam then received the call from Musa Safri and duly passed the phone to the inspector. After the conversation of 3 – 4 minutes, the inspector told the girls to disperse and to see him the next day (Paragraphs 34 – 38). We believe DSP Musa Safri was aide-de-camp to Datuk Seri Najib at the material time.
6. Balasubramaniam was interrogated at Bukit Aman for seven consecutive days and his statement recorded at the end of November 2008. He says that he told the police all that he knew including everything Razak Baginda and Altantuya had told him about their relationships with Najib. These details were omitted from the statement he was asked to sign (Paragraph 49).
7. During the trial of Sirul, Azilah and Razak Baginda at at the Shah Alam High Court, the prosecutor did not ask him any questions in respect of the relationship Altantuya had with Datuk Seri Najib or of the phone call that he had received form DSP Musa Safri (Paragraph 50).
8. When Razak Baginda was arrested, Balasubramaniam was told by him that he had sent an SMS messsage to Najib the evening before (Paragraph 51). Razak also informed Balasubramaniam that he had received an SMS from Najib and showed it to him; the message read “I am seeing IGP at 11 A.M. today …. matter will be solved … be cool”.

Mr. Balasubramaniam’s evidence also mentions the extent of the relationship between Altantuya and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak. We are not interested in the personal nature of the relationship. That is entirely his own business and hers.

However the allegations revealed by him raise key questions of public interest:

a) Suppression of evidence by the police investigating officers and those responsible for prosecuting this case. Such suppression could only have happened with the full knowledge of top public officials such as the IGP and the AG.
b) The question is also raised as to whether such suppression of evidence was the reason behind the last minute switch in DPP’s handling the case – where the head of the Criminal Division of the AG’s Chambers, Datuk Yusuf Zainal Abiden was completely sidelined from the case leading him and the senior DPP originally slotted for the case Sallehudin Saidin to put in papers for early retirement some months later.
c) Questions can be raised now with regard to the sudden switching of the judge fixed to hear the case which took place in March 2007 – why was this really done?
d) Did Datuk Seri Najib lie when he said that he had never met Altantuya before?
e) Did Datuk Seri Najib lie when he said that he was not involved in any commission deals for the purchases of the Scorpene submarines”

Mr.Balasubramaniam’s evidence vindicate what we have been saying all along; there has been no proper investigation of the murder of Altantuya and the investigation and proceedings in court seem to following a pre-arranged script for a pre-arranged outcome.

This has serious implications for the administration of justice in the country where the integrity and credibility of our key institutions such as the police, the AG’s chambers and the judiciary are already severely tarnished.

Today’s revelations further confirm a clear and consistent pattern of manipulation of the criminal justice system that we have witnessed in this country since 1998.

The allegations revealed here warrant a full Royal Commission of Inquiry.

KUALA LUMPUR: Polis semalam memberi jaminan akan melakukan siasatan dengan adil dan telus berhubung dakwaan terbaru kes liwat membabitkan Penasihat Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Sehubungan itu, Pengarah Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Bukit Aman, Datuk Mohd Bakri Mohd Zinin, mengingatkan penyokong Anwar supaya tidak melakukan sebarang kekecohan atau menyebarkan khabar angin yang boleh mengancam ketenteraman awam.

Sejak malam kelmarin, ramai penyokong Anwar dikatakan berkumpul di sebuah hotel di Shah Alam, terutama selepas menerima khidmat pesanan ringkas (SMS) yang mendakwa Penasihat PKR itu akan ditahan kerana dituduh meliwat seorang pembantunya, berusia 23 tahun Khamis lalu.

Majlis Tertinggi dan Biro Politik PKR turut mengadakan mesyuarat tergempar malam kelmarin, manakala Presidennya, Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail pada sidang media semalam mempertahankan suaminya dan menyifatkan tuduhan terbaru itu sebagai satu lagi konspirasi politik untuk mengalihkan tumpuan terhadap kes pembunuhan wanita Mongolia, Altantuya Shaariibuu. Anwar bagaimanapun tidak hadir pada sidang akhbar parti itu kerana berlindung di Kedutaan Turki di sini dan mengeluarkan kenyataan sembilan perenggan pada jam 5.30 petang semalam bagi menjelaskan mengenai dakwaan terbaru terhadapnya itu.

Awal pagi kelmarin, Anwar dalam satu kenyataan yang dibacakan Naib Presiden PKR, R Sivarasa, menyifatkan dakwaan itu 'hanya rekaan semata-mata' dan laporan polis itu dibuat bagi menyekat kebangkitan karier politiknya selepas kemenangan besar pembangkang pada pilihan raya umum lalu. Anwar juga mendakwa ia satu lagi rancangan jahat diatur pihak tertentu sebagai tindak balas terhadap bukti yang diperolehnya membabitkan salah guna kuasa Ketua Polis Negara, Tan Sri Musa Hassan dan Peguam Negara, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail. Mohd Bakri pada sidang medianya bagaimanapun menegaskan, semua pihak tidak seharusnya membuat sebarang andaian terhadap kes ini, sebaliknya hendaklah memberi peluang kepada polis melakukan siasatan dengan adil. "Dakwaan Anwar juga satu andaian kerana sehingga kini belum ada sebarang laporan polis dilakukan. Kita akan membuat penyiasatan secara terperinci dalam semua aspek dari segi perundangan.

"Siasatan baru bermula. Kita akan melihat tuduhan yang dilakukan pengadu secara teliti dan mengenal pasti seksyen mana yang mengaitkannya," katanya tetapi enggan mengulas sama ada Anwar akan dipanggil memberi kenyataan dalam masa terdekat. Beliau berkata, pengadu membuat laporan di pondok polis Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL), kira-kira jam 5.45 petang kelmarin dengan mendakwa diliwat Anwar di sebuah kondominium di Damansara pada 26 Jun lalu. Mengenai dakwaan penyokong Anwar yang pengadu dipaksa membuat laporan polis, Mohd Bakri berkata, pengadu membuat laporan itu secara sukarela.

Sumber Berita Harian.

Wakil peguam Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim akan memfailkan saman berkenaan laporan polis berbau fitnah yang dibuat ke atasnya itu pada 30 Jun (Isnin), jam 9:30 pagi di Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur, Jalan Duta.