Judge: Razak Baginda conspired with cops convicted of slaying Altantuya

Share to help stimulate good governance, ensure future of people & M’sia

No News Is Bad News

Judge: Razak Baginda conspired with cops convicted of slaying Altantuya

KUALA LUMPUR, July 11, 2024: The High Court today ruled that Razak Baginda’s silence about Altantuya Shaaribuu’s murder suggest complicity.

Justice Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera Razak said Baginda’s conduct gave rise to an irresistible inference that he conspired with the two cops convicted of Altantuya Shaaribuu’s murder.

Vazeer, now a Federal Court judge, said the court was entitled to invoke an adverse inference against Razak under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 for his refusal to testify or lead evidence through witnesses.

Political analyst Baginda elected not to testify under oath or call witnesses in a suit brought by Altantuya’s family over her unlawful killing.

However, that is not the crux of the Oct 19, 2006 slaying of Altantuya by two police commandos.

Eighteen years after the police shot her in the head at point blank, and then used military-grade C4 explosives to blow her to smithereens, no one, including the governments of Malaysia (elected every five years), want to knoiw who gave the police commandos the order to kill Altantuya.

It is believed that Altantuya was pregnant when she was killed and the police wanted to rid any evidence of the foetus.

No News Is Bad News reproduces below a news report of the High Cout ruling:

Razak’s silence about Altantuya’s killing suggests complicity, High Court rules

V Anbalagan-11 Jul 2024, 07:30 AM

Judge rules Razak Baginda’s conduct gave rise to an irresistible inference that he conspired with the two cops convicted of Altantuya Shaaribuu’s murder.

The High Court said Razak’s Baginda’s denials of liability for Altantuya Shaaribuu’s death were of no probative value without his testimony at trial.

PETALING JAYA: An adverse inference had to be drawn against political analyst Razak Baginda after he elected not to testify under oath or call witnesses in a suit brought by Altantuya Shaariibuu’s family over her unlawful killing, the High Court said.

Justice Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera said several questions needed answers that only Razak – who had admitted to being in a romantic relationship with the Mongolian woman between November 2004 and August 2005 – could give.

“However, despite the opportunity to explain by taking the (witness) stand, he chose not to. There is clear oblique motive on the part of the third defendant (Razak) in electing to submit that there is no case to answer,” Vazeer said in a 90-page judgment released last week.

Vazeer, now a Federal Court judge, said the court was entitled to invoke an adverse inference against Razak under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 for his refusal to testify or lead evidence through witnesses.

On Dec 16, 2022, Vazeer, sitting in the Shah Alam High Court, delivered his oral decision holding former policemen Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azhar Umar, Razak and the federal government liable for Altantuya’s death.

The judge ordered that they jointly and severally pay her family RM5 million in damages.

In his written judgment, Vazeer noted that at a meeting held in Razak’s office on Oct 17, 2006, Azilah told Razak that he could “finish that woman (Altantuya) off”.

Razak is said to have replied that there was no need to go to such extremes as, if anything were to happen to Altantuya, her family was bound to look for him.

“Now, if indeed that was the response, then Razak ought to have testified on oath to explain why he called upon Azilah to deal with the deceased on the night of Oct 19, 2006 when she was outside his house.

“(Razak’s) exculpatory averments and denials of liability for the death of the deceased as contained in his amended defence were of no probative value without (his) testimony at trial,” the judge said.

The plaintiffs – Altantuya’s parents, Shaariibuu Setev and Altantsetseg Sanjaa, and her son, Mungunshagai – filed a suit in 2007 claiming that there was a conspiracy surrounding her murder. They sought RM100 million in damages.

Altantuya had been shot dead the previous year in a forest in Puncak Alam near Shah Alam. Her body was later blown up using C4 explosives.

Azilah and Sirul were convicted of her murder and sentenced to death.

Razak, a former aide to then deputy prime minister Najib Razak, was charged with abetting the duo, but was acquitted without his defence being called.

Sirul fled to Australia before the final appeal where he remains, while Azilah is on death row at Kajang prison. Neither challenged the family’s suit.

In his judgment, Vazeer ruled that the plaintiffs’ family had proved its case on a balance of probabilities.

They had established that Altantuya was last seen alive on the night of Oct 19, 2006 leaving the vicinity of the Bukit Aman officers’ mess in Sirul’s car together with the two policemen who subsequently murdered her.

Vazeer said Sirul and Azilah had also admitted to several police officers that they had caused Altantuya’s unlawful death by first shooting her with a firearm and then blowing her body to smithereens by strapping it with military grade explosives.

The judge said Razak’s conduct revealed clearly that he knew what the policemen had intended to do and was involved in the plan.

“(Razak’s) conduct before and after the death of the deceased gives rise to the irresistible inference that he conspired and colluded with the cops to cause the death of the deceased,” he said.

Vazeer said the cops had no reasons of their own to kill Altantuya.

“I find that the plaintiffs have established that Razak was complicit in the killing of Altantuya by the cops and as such is liable for the unlawful killing.”

Vazeer also said he was satisfied that the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded the key requirements of the tort of conspiracy which is often clouded in secrecy.

“The circumstantial evidence of conspiracy is overwhelming,” he added.

The judge said he considered the sum of RM5 million awarded as damages fair and adequate given the “sorry episode” of her killing and the conspiratorial conduct of the defendants.

“I must say that I have not come across another case in this country that compares to the brutality of Azilah and Sirul in killing the deceased,” he said, adding this serious wrong done to the deceased by serving policemen must be condemned in the strongest terms.

Both Razak and the government have appealed to the Court of Appeal against Vazeer’s finding on liability and the quantum of damages awarded.

Last December, FMT reported that lawyers for Altantuya’s family were exploring the possibility of resolving the case with the government without going through the appeal process.