red arrow 

 red arrow 


Speech by Lim Kit Siang in Parliament when moving RM10-cut motion for Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail on Tuesday, 9th November 2010: 

Gani Patail stand accused of fabricating evidence in the Anwar Ibrahim “black eye” investigation in 1998, which stands unrebutted although made by the police officer responsible for the investigation 12 years ago

On April 14, 2010, in response to my statement “Call for RCI to conduct full inquiry on whether Israeli agents had infiltrated Bukit Aman” posted on my blog on April 10, 2010, I received following email from one Datuk Mat Zain bin Ibrahim, which said among other things:

“First and foremost let me declare that I was the Investigation Officer of the infamous “black-eye” incident,which need no further elaboration.

“My response are confined to certain remarks only which YB made in the above article,that are reproduced below;

“A good case in point was the 1998 “black-eyes” attack on Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim by the then Inspector-General of Police in the very inner sanctum of Bukit Aman, just some fortnight after losing his high positions as Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister.

The top police leadership even got the then Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad to declare publicly that Anwar’s “black eyes” could be self-inflicted, when Anwar was nearly beaten to death by the then Inspector-General in Bukit Aman!

Finally, only an independent Royal Commission Inquiry could delve out the truth about Anwar’s “black-eyes” assault”.

“I have to say it point blank that YB’s remarks as above are incorrect. I can’t blame YB for having made such remarks since you did not have sight nor would you ever be allowed to have sight of the investigation paper (IP)which I put up. However for YB’s benefit,I would suggest you have a look at the copy of my letter dated 15.4.2009 which I wrote to the Advisory Board and the various Committees of MACC,to have a better understanding of what exactly transpired during the course of the investigation.

“I can vouch that the top Police leadership too never saw the IP. I never briefed them nor took any instructions from them pertaining to the black-eye investigation. I was totally independent. I dealt direct with the AG’s rep. Tan Sri Abdul Ghani Patail (then Dato Gani Patail a senior DPP in AG’s Chambers ) and no others.

“It is also not correct for YB to say that top police leadership that got to (Dato Seri Dr.Mahathir Mohamed, the PM then (TDM), to declare publicly that Anwar’s black-eye was self-inflicted. It was I who met TDM on 8.10.1998 at about 8.15 am at the PM’s office.(that was less than two weeks from the time I was appointed the I.O.) I told TDM without hesitation that DSAI’s black-eye was due to assault and that the assailant was Tan Sri Rahim Noor (TSRN) himself. And that no one abetted TSRN. I gave my word to TDM that there would not be any cover-up in the investigation and that the IP would be completed in two weeks time,from then, and handed over to the AG for further actions.

“I must say that YB’s remark saying that only after the RCI was formed that the truth was known is also incorrect. In fact the assailant in this case was identified by the Police themselves which I conveyed to TDM on 8.10.1998.

“I have to state in defense of the Police that PDRM are able to conduct a ‘no-holds-barred’ investigation and the IP in point was the probe into the black-eye incident 1998. I assure YB that the comments I made above were all recorded in detail in the Investigation Diary (ID) and the special running report to the AG’s Chambers which are still in the IP. Some parts are attached to my letter dated 15.4.2009 to the MACC.

“One must follow the events that led to the establishment of the RCI by the order to appreciate why it was set up. In short, the delay in completion of the investigation was due to the unprofessional manner the IP was handled by the AG Chambers, and in particular by Tan Sri Gani Patail himself. I can say without fear of favour that if there were misleads then it was Gani Patail who misled and if there was manipulations of evidence then it was he who initiated them.

“PDRM’s position regarding this investigation was firm in that it shall be done without fear or favour and to leave no stone unturned and to get it over as soon as possible irrespective of whoever the assailant be. That was what exactly we did and it was I who recommended to charge TSRN under Section 323 Penal Code for assaulting DSAI well before the RCI was set up.

“YB is fully aware that DSAI have lodged a report on 1.7.2008 alleging 4 individuals namely Gani Patail, Musa Hassan, one Dr.Abdul Rahman Yusof and myself to be involved in fabricating evidence in the black-eye investigations. This case was investigated by MACC.

“On 11.3.2009 YB Nazri Aziz announced in Parliament that a three-member Independent Panel appointed as DPPs under the CPC by the Solicitor General to study the investigation into DSAI’s allegations cleared Gani Patail and Musa Hassan of any wrong-doing. YB Nazri also mentioned that the Panel’s decision on Musa Hassan was “unanimous”(3-0) whilst on Gani Patail by “a majority”(2-1).

(The three persons appointed were former judges Datuk Abdul Kadir Sulaiman, Datuk Wira Mohd Noor Ahmad an Datuk Mohd Noor Abdullah).

“For YB’s information, it was the result of this announcement that I wrote the 15.4.2009 letter to the Advisory Board of MACC. Among the issues I raised was that DSAI alleged 4 people to have fabricated the evidence but the Panel ‘cleared’ only two persons namely Gani Patail and Musa Hassan. So I wanted to know my position and demanded that I be cleared.The details are found in my letter.

“The other important point which I raised in that letter was about the ‘validity’ of the appointment of the Panel Members as DPPs under the CPC by the Solicitor General(SG).

“I pointed to the Advisory Board that as far as I know,the SG have no rights or power under the CPC to appoint any qualified persons as DPPs. The only person that have the rights and powers to do so is the Public Prosecutor which must be exercisable by the PP personally as stipulated in Sec 376(4) CPC. I also stated in my letter that the SG only have the powers of a DPP and as such if the SG was the one to have appointed the Panel Members then,the Panel was not lawfully instituted. As such the Panel’s decisions or findings are useless and null & void. I went further to state that should the AG himself was the one who appointed the Panel Members then the issue of serious conflict of interest would arise since it was the AG himself who was supposed to be adjudicated in this case. Based on my interpretation of Sec 376 of the CPC and having been advised of the same, I am of the view that the ‘clearance’ given to Gani Patail and Musa Hassan are unlawful based on the grounds that the Panel was not legally instituted.

“The other point is that YB Nazri clearly stated that the Panel’s decision on Gani Patail was by a majority(2-1).Notwithstanding the validity of the Panel Members’ appointment, one Dato Abdul Razak Musa(Razak), the Director of Legal & Prosecution Department MACC, have affirmed in his affidavit dated 30.6.2009 and filed in the on-going sodomy case that the decision by the Panel on both Musa Hassan and Gani Patail are ‘unanimous’. So here either YB Nazri or Razak or both did not tell the truth.

“Razak further affirmed in that same affidavit that based on the findings of all the Panel Members he closed the case against Gani Patail only! This could also be taken to mean that the case against the other three namely Musa Hassan, Dr.Rahman and myself are still on-going. To me this is just ridiculous when the evidence on Gani Patail are so obvious and yet the MACC close the case against him ONLY. It only shows that MACC and the Chambers are prepared even to go to the extent of affirming false affidavit to screen Gani Patail from legal punishment.(for YB’s information this Razak is the Counsel for MACC in the TBH Inquest).

Yang Berhormat,I do not wish to write more than I should. I hope my response to your article would not take much of your time to comprehend and lastly I can assure you that the facts disclosed above are easily verified. Apart from that I have given my written undertaking to MACC and the AG’s Chambers that I’m prepared to disclose those facts in any judicial proceeding concerning this matter.”

In his letter to the Advisory Board on Corruption (Lembaga Penasihat Suruhanjaya Pencegah Rasuah Malaysia SPRM) dated 15th April 2009, Mat Zat wrote:

“Tanpa mengambil kesahihan perlantikan ‘Panel Bebas’ tersebut, seorang Yang Ariff Panel berkenaan telah mendapati Gani Patail terlibat dalam salah laku jenayah sekalipun sejenis jenayah yang dilakukan tidak dinyatakan.

“Selaku Pegawai Penyiasat kes ‘mata lebam 1998’, saya amat yakin, sekiranya Yang Ariff Ahli-Ahli Panel berkenaan dibekalkan dengan dokumen lengkap seperti yang terkandung dalam Kertas Siasatan yang pernah saya sediakan dahulu dan dibaca bersama dengan Laporan Suruhanjaya Di Raja, maka ketiga-tiga Yang Ariff berkenaan akan mendapati salah laku jenayah yang lebih dari itu.

Mat Zain then went on a great length to substantiate what he described as

“Dakwaan ‘mereka keterangan palsu’ berkaitan Laporan perubatan keatas Anwar Ibrahim Dalam kes ‘mata lebam’ 1998” yang melibatkan Gani Patail dan Dr. Rahman.

Mat Zain telah mengistiharkan beliau serta Pegawai-Pegawai dalam Pasukan Khas kes tersebut dan juga pucuk pimpinan PDRM ketika itu tidak pernah mensubahati Tan Sri Gani Patail dalam memalsukan keterangan terhadap DSAI.

Malahan beliau menjelaskan bahawa beliau telah mengambil segala langkah yang perlu (yang dirakamkan dalam diari penyiasatan beliau) untuk menasihati dan menghalang beliau daripada melakukan sesuatu yang menyalahi undang-undang dalam penyiasatan kes mata lebam tersebut.

Mat Zain telah menasihatkan Gani Patail ketika itu, posisi Dr. Rahman yang sedang dalam siasatan Polis berkaitan satu kes ugutan jenayah keatas seorang Dr. Abdul Halim Mansar yang merupakan Pakar Forensik Hospital Kuala Lumpur yang mula-mula menyediakan lapuran kecederaan keatas DSAI atas permintaan rasmi beliau, dan penggunaan Dr. Rahman menyediakan lapuran perubatan bertentangan dengan apa yang telah disediakan oleh Dr. Halim, akan menyebabkan “complications” kemudian hari.

Rupa-rupanya Gani Patail telah mengambil kesempatan posisi Dr. Rahman sedemikian itu untuk mengarahkannya menyediakan sejumlah tiga lapuran palsu berlainan berkaitan dengan kecederaan DSAI dalam insiden mata lebam tersebut.

In my speech on the budget on Thursday 28th Oct., I had referred to Mat Zain’s Open Letter dated 8th October 2010 to Datin Kalsom Taib, wife and biographer of Datuk Shafee Yahya, former head of Anti-Corruption Agency,in response to questions asked in her book about police investigations into allegations against former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad for abuse of power in June 1998 in ordering a halt to corruption investigations against Ali Abul Hassan Sulaiman, head of Economic Planning Unit as Mat Zain was the officer in charge of investigations into the allegations.

Mat Zain revealed in his Open Letter that he had written in May this year to Tan Sri Ismail Omar, then Deputy IGP and the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, for a review of investigations into the false evidence produced against Anwar in the “black eye” assault case of 1998 “to protect the credibility, impartiality and image of the PDRM which had been serious affected since 2006”.

I told Parliament that Mat Zain made the very serious allegation that former IGP Musa Hassan and Attorney-General Gani Patail had allowed fabricated evidence in the Anwar Ibrahim “black eye” assault case and must be held responsible for the current mess of the criminal justice system.

Mat Zain had asked in the Open Letter:

“Apa sudah jadi dengan Sistem Keadilan Jenayah kita?....Siapa yang sepatutnya dipersalahkan? Siapa yang menyebabkan Sistem Keadilan Jenayah kita menjadi kucar kacir sehinggakan sesiapa juga boleh mempermain-mainkannya tanpa takut kepada sebarang tindakan dan hukuman undang-undang? Saya tidak teragak-agak untuk menyatakan bahawa keadaan ini berpunca daripada ‘precedent’ yang dibuat oleh Tan Sri Gani Patail dan Tan Sri Musa Hassan sendiri.”

I had said in Parliament: “Gani Patail, Musa Hassan or the Home Minister Hishammuddin and IGP Ismail cannot keep mum on this most incriminating and devastating Open Letter by a former top cop and I call on the Home Minister to give a full and satisfactory accounting on this matter to Parliament.”

I am shocked that the Home Minister, Hishammuddin did not reply to me at all on Mat Zain’s damning indictment of the criminal justice system and when I asked him why there was no response from him when he sat down at the end of his two-hour-long winding-up speech, gave the outrageous reply that I never raise the matter in my speech.

I am utterly shocked at it is all in the Hansard. Either the Home Minister was dishonest or he had been deceived by his officers, which means the Home Minister is not master of his Ministry.

How could this happen, unless it is part of a deliberate conspiracy to ignore and cover-up the biggest scandal in the history of criminal justice in Malaysia!

As adverted in his Open Letter to Datin Kalsom, Mat Zain said:

“Dalam surat saya kepada Tan Sri Ismail itu juga saya telah memberi ‘isyarat awal’ berkaitan pemerhatian saya mengenai penggunaan keterangan palsu dalam perbicaraan Sodomy II yang sedang berjalan.Keterangan palsu/tidak benar itu adalah dalam bentuk dua afidavit yang diikrarkan pada 30.6.2009 oleh dua Pegawai Jabatan Peguam Negara bagi pihak Pendakwa Raya.Perkara ini bukan rahsia kerana DSAI sendiri telah membuat laporan Polis Travers Rpt:5160/09 pada 21.7.2009 dan membuat kenyataan akhbar mengenai laporan ini terhadap, Dato Abdul Razak Musa Pengarah Pendakwaan dan Perundangan SPRM dan Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Hanafiah Hj.Zakaria dari Jabatan Peguam Negara, seorang Ahli dalam Pasukan Pendakwaan kes Sodomy II.

“Berpeluang meneliti kandungan dokumen-dokumen tersebut yang berada dalam public domain itu,serta mengetahui perkara sabjek yang terkandung dalam laporan Suruhanjaya DiRaja berkaitan,saya berpendapat yang dakwaan DSAI ada kebenarannya walaupun saya tidak mempunyai ekses lagi untuk mengetahui hasil siasatan berkaitan laporan tersebut.

“Saya memberikan isyarat awal ini adalah untuk PDRM mengambil langkah berjaga-jaga supaya tidak dijadikan “scape-goat” sekiranya sesuatu yang buruk berlaku dalam pendakwaan Sodomy II seperti mana yang menimpa PDRM dan saya dalam penyiasatan kes mata-lebam.

“Hari ini pula,ketika saya sedang menulis Surat Terbuka ini kepada Datin, tersiar pula secara meluas dalam akhbar-akhbar dan blogs mengenai seorang Rahimi Osman yang disenaraikan sebagai seorang saksi pembelaan,menghebahkan pula yang beliau dipaksa membuat Statutory Declaration (SD) untuk mengaitkan Dato Seri Najib dan Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor dalam kes Sodomy II ,yang melibatkan sahabat beliau Mohd.Saiful Bukhari Azlan dua tahun lalu.Dilaporkan pula kononya Rahimi Osman telah membuat SD yang baru pula.Ini mengingatkan kita kepada apa yang dilakukan oleh Private Investigator Bala dalam kes bunuh Altantuya.

Apa sudah jadi dengan Sistem Keadilan Jenayah kita? Seolah BAB XI dalam Kanun Keseksaan berkaitan Keterangan Palsu dan Kesalahan-Kesalahan Terhadap Keadilan Awam tidak ujud lagi.Siapa yang sepatutnya dipersalahkan?.Siapa yang menyebabkan Sistem Keadilan Jenayah kita menjadi kucar kacir, sehinggakan sesiapa juga boleh mempermain-mainkannya tanpa takut kepada sebarang tindakan dan hukuman undang-undang.Saya tidak teragak-agak untuk menyatakan bahawa keadaan ini berpunca daripada “precedent” yang dibuat oleh Tan Sri Gani Patail dan Tan Sri Musa Hassan sendiri.Jika mereka boleh merekacipta keterangan palsu dan menggunakan dua daripada tiga laporan yang dipalsukan itu pula dalam prosiding kehakiman Suruhanjaya Di Raja, dan kemudian mendabik dada mengatakan mereka bersih daripada sebarang salah laku jenayah;jika Tan Sri Musa boleh memberi keterangan palsu dalam perbicaraan dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur seperti yang dilaporkan oleh seorang Penggubal Undang-Undang YB R.Sivarasa dalam bulan Mac tahun ini, dan tiada tindakan dikenakan;jika Tan Sri Musa Hassan boleh mengemukakan Pernyataan Tuntutan yang tidak benar dalam samannya terhadap DSAI serta menuntut berjuta Ringgit sebagai ganti rugi pula dan menayangkan pula saman tersebut kepada dunia,maka P.I.Bala dan Rahimi Osman juga tidak bimbang akan tindakan undang-undang terhadap mereka.Cuma yang tidak bernasib baik, mungkin Brig.Gen (B) Datuk Mohamad Yasin Yahya bekas Panglima Brigade Sabah(saya juga tidak pernah mengenali beliau) yang telah berpuloh tahun menabur keringatnya mempertahankan kedaulatan Negara, akhirnya diaibkan dengan dituduh memberi keterangan palsu(walaupun kemudiannya didapati tidak bersalah) ketika memberi keterangan di-Mahkamah melibatkan satu kes Dato Ramli Yusuff.”

Gani Patail stand accused of fabricating evidence in the Anwar Ibrahim “black eye” investigation in 1998, which stands unrebutted although made by the police officer responsible for the investigation 12 years ago.

It is not made by an ordinary person but by a top cop in the country who was entrusted with the investigation into one of the blackest episodes in the history of the police and good governance in the country.

We have the bizarre and scandalous situation where the Attorney-General, the highest legal officer of the land who is also Public Prosecutor, stand accused of subverting the very law and Constitution which he is charged with upholding, undermining and subverting course of justice himself, and who dare not take steps to rebut these serious allegations of a top cop say by way of a Royal Commission of Inquiry!

On this score alone, a censure motion by way of a RM10-cut is fully warranted.

But there are many issues pertaining to public confidence in the independence, impartiality and professionalism of the Attorney-General that can be raised, but because of time constraints, I will just mention in passing the following:

Why AG is so eager to close the books over the two conflicting statutory declarations by Private Investigator P. Balasubramaniam on the heinous C4 murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shariibuu?

All Malaysians are asking why the Attorney-General is so eager to close the books over the two conflicting statutory declarations by Private Investigator P. Balasubramiam on the heinous C4 murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shariibuu in 2006.

In an extraordinary twist to the sordid saga of the C4 murder of Altantuya, Balasubramaniam has hit back at the government for closing the case on his double statutory declarations.

In an open letter to attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail the day after the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz told Parliament that the Attorney-General had closed the case, Balasubramaniam said that he was “surprised” that despite having conceded to signing a false statutory declaration, the police could not find evidence of any wrongdoing.

In his Open Letter, Balasubramaniam wrote:

“I have been made to understand that you have decided to close the case involving two statutory declarations I signed sometime at the beginning of July 2008 in Kuala Lumpur.

“The contents of these statutory declarations were diametrically opposed. Both could not have been true and therefore one of them was false. I trust that makes sense to you.

“The police, I believe, have investigated the circumstances surrounding the making of these two statutory declarations under section 199 of the Penal Code, for an offence which carries a sentence of three years' imprisonment and a fine. “This is not a trivial offence.

“The police must have interviewed my lawyer, Americk Sidhu, his secretary, the commissioner of oaths who attested my signature and a variety of other witnesses you have mentioned who were somehow intrinsically interwoven in the construction and affirmation of both statutory declarations, one way or another.

“It has therefore come as a great surprise to me to discover that you have been unable to decipher any wrongdoing from the enormous amount of evidence the police must have been able to accumulate from their investigations.

“Please permit me to assist you. Firstly, may I suggest that you re-open this file immediately. I will make it easy for you.

“Let me admit to you that I did sign a false statutory declaration. Yes, I did. I signed a false statutory declaration. It was the second one, not the first one. The first one was entirely truthful. The second one was a complete pack of lies. I admit this.

“This statutory declaration was prepared by some unknown person(s) and I was forced by very thinly veiled threats and intimidation to sign it. I have already made this known to the world at large and I am surprised your office has not picked this up as yet. Everyone else has.

“If you are unable to ascertain this information which I have just provided to you directly, please feel free to contact me at this email address [email protected] and I shall forward to you a copy of the video recorded interview I had in the presence of my lawyers in Singapore last November, and a copy of the transcript thereof.

“Otherwise you can find this information on all the blogs worth reading (such as Raja Petra Kamarudin's Malaysia Today) and also on 'YouTube' (just type in 'PI Bala' into the search column and you will be surprised what comes up).

“So you may now consider charging me for making the false second statutory declaration after the clues I have given you. I do however reserve the right to plead not guilty to the charge as I believe I have a very good defence.

“Your prosecutors will also have to make sure they call all the necessary witnesses to prove their case against me. These witnesses will have to include the following personalities:

i) A lawyer named Arunampalam Mariam Pillai (who coincidentally does legal work for Deepak Jayakishan and Rosmah Mansor's personal companies).

ii) A commissioner of oaths (Zainal Abidin Muhayat) who works in the office of Zul Rafique and Partners (Advocates & Solicitors) and who attested my signature when he came to the room in which I was being held at the Hilton Hotel Kuala Lumpur.

iii) Deepak and Dinesh Jaikishan (very good friends and confidantes of Rosmah Mansor).

iv) Nazim Razak (younger brother of the prime minister), and his wife.

v) ASP Suresh (a suspended police officer formerly attached to the IPK headquarters in KL).

vi) Officers from the Immigration Department Damansara (who assisted in obtaining urgent passports for my family).

vii) A host of journalists and reporters who were present in the lobby of the Prince Hotel Kuala Lumpur when a lawyer called Arunampalam released my second statutory declaration without my permission.

“These are just some of the witnesses I can think of but I am sure you know how to do your job so that should be not a problem. I don't want to be accused of trying to teach an old dog new tricks.

“If for some strange reason my defence is called, I will also be able to provide witnesses to support what I have to say. I need not disclose who these witnesses are at this stage and I am sure you know that as well.

“I shall now wait for the charge against me to be laid.

“I will be more than happy to return to Malaysia to defend myself but you will have to ensure that my safety is guaranteed as there are some people who would prefer that I was not around.”

Is the Attorney-General prepared to take up Balasubramaniam’s challenge and charge him for the crime of making a false statutory declaration – and if not, why not.

The Attorney-General’s handling of Balasubramiam’s two conflicting statutory declarations and the C4 murder of Mongolian Altantuya do not conduce to enhancing public confidence in the administration of the justice, but the reverse – which has far-reaching consequences in undermining Malaysia’s international competitiveness and driving away not only FDIs and foreign talents, but also local funds and local talents.

*Lim Kit Siang, DAP Parliamentary Leader & MP for Ipoh Timor



Valid HTML 4.0 Transitional