As Najib has admitted in FAQ to a direct interest in Altantuya case, he should withdraw from all decision-making whether there should be a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Altantuya’s murder to avoid conflict of interest
What has not attracted sufficient notice in the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s FAQ on the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder case is that it was a clear admission that he has a direct interest in the case, although it was couched in the language of denial, denying that he had anything to do with the issue and his Sumpah Laknat.
His direct interest in the nine-year Altantuya case was in Paragraph 3 of the FAQ on Altantuya issue, where he said:
“What is important is that the judgment brings justice to everyone, most importantly to the family of the victim, to the accused and even to me.”
Now the nine-year Altantuya case, which concluded in the Federal Court in January with the conviction and death sentence passed on the two accused, former police special commandoes, Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azhar Umar is the subject of increasing public controversy both nationally and internationally because it had failed to deliver justice to everyone as well as to the family of the victim, the two convicted accused and even to Najib himself.
This is because the nine-year-old Altantuya case has left unanswered two important public interest questions, viz:
- Who ordered Altantuya to be killed; and
- Whether there had been a nine-year “conspiracy of silence” involving the Police, the Attorney-General and the judiciary as well as others to avoid probing into the motives for the killing of Altantuya.
In the circumstances, as Najib’s FAQ is nothing but a public admission that he has a direct interest in the case, he should withdraw from all decision-making process whether there should be a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Altantuya’s murder.
Is Najib prepared to announce that he is cognizant of such conflict-of-interest and he would not be involved in any manner with the decision-making process as to whether there should be RCI into Altantuya’s murder to ascertain (i) whether anyone, if so who, had ordered Altantuya to be killed; and (II) Whether there was a nine-year “conspiracy of silence” involving the Police, the Attorney-General and the judiciary as well as others on the motives for the killing of Altantuya?
Furthermore, whether the Prime Minister would allow the Cabinet or Parliament a free hand to decide whether a RCI into Altantuya’s murder should be established.