TRUTH SHALL PREVAIL

"If only had I......"


Let us take a look at what criminal lawyers are saying about P.I. Balasubramaniam's Statutory Declarations. What is the difference between an affidavit and a statutory declaration? Find out.

Lawyers: Balasubramaniam has committed an offence

By V. Anbalagan and Sharanjit Singh

NST 05/07/08 adapted from malaysian Bar

• Lawyer: No reason to doubt first statement
• Hidden agenda probe after retraction by private eye
• Balasubramaniam in hiding?
• Document can be tendered in court

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.

Lawyer: No reason to doubt first statement

KUALA LUMPUR: The lawyer who had taken down the statutory declaration by private investigator P. Balasubramaniam said it was done voluntarily.

Americk Singh Sidhu claimed Balasubramaniam had been "intimidated" to change his story within 24 hours.

He said at a press conference he first met Balasubramaniam two months ago where he was asked for assistance in preparing a formal document incorporating evidence that had not been presented in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial.

"I started the process about two weeks after that.

"I would have met him a few times when I recorded in longhand what Balasubramaniam said to me."

Americk said he had no reason to doubt that what Balasubramaniam told him was the truth.

Americk said the statutory declaration was read in front of a commissioner for oaths, who then attested it.

"I am, therefore, extremely surprised that Balasubramaniam, in a space of 24 hours has engaged the services of another lawyer and affirmed another statutory declaration swearing the first one was untrue and that he was forced to sign it."

Americk said he had last spoken to Balasubramaniam at his office on Thursday.

"After we finished with the press conference we went back to my office.

"He had been receiving a lot of phone calls but Balasubramaniam did not answer them."

Americk said when he asked him who had been calling him, Balasubramaniam said it was "ASP Tony from the Altantuya trial".

"He spoke in front of me. It was lively, they were talking about fish head curry.

"The impression I got was Balasubramaniam was going to meet Tony in Brickfields at 6.30pm."

Hidden agenda probe after retraction by private eye

by Azura Abas

KUALA LUMPUR: Private investigator P. Balasubramaniam will not be let off so easily, after making bombshell claims on Thursday and then withdrawing them less than 24 hours later.

Police have now got into the act and are investigating both his statutory declarations. They want to know if there are hidden agendas behind both sworn statements.

In his first SD filed on July 1, the former policeman linked Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to the murdered Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu.

In a complete turnaround, Balasubramaniam filed another SD yesterday, retracting the earlier document.

Deputy Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar said both the statutory declarations would be probed despite the earlier declaration dated July 1 being retracted by Balasubramaniam.

"Notwithstanding the retraction, the earlier SD will also be probed as there might be intentions to create a diversion," Ismail said without elaborating.

Najib charged on Thursday that the first declaration, which was disclosed in a press conference by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, was aimed at distracting attention from Anwar's sodomy allegations.

Lawyers told the New Straits Times that Balasubramaniam had committed an offence. Two conflicting SDs cannot be right. One of it must be false, was the consensus legal opinion.

Balasubramaniam, meanwhile, has gone missing. Attempts to reach him on his mobile phone and at his home were futile.

Yesterday at 11am at the Prince Hotel here, Balasubramaniam, accompanied by Arulampalam Mariampillai, a different lawyer from a day earlier, called a press conference to retract the entire contents of his first declaration.

Arulampalam said his client's earlier SD was made under duress and that he had been upset with the government.

Balasubramaniam's retraction read:

- At no material time did Abdul Razak Baginda inform me that he was introduced to Altantuya by a VIP.

- At no material time did Razak inform me that Najib had a sexual relationship with Altantuya.

- At no material time did Razak inform me that Najib instructed Razak to look after Altantuya as he did not want her to harass him since he was the deputy prime minister.

- At no material time did Razak and/or Altantuya inform me that Najib together with Razak and Altantuya had met and all had been together at a dinner in Paris.

- At no material time did Altantuya inform me that she wanted money in the sum of US$500,000 as commission for a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris.

- At no time whatsoever did Razak and/or Altantuya inform me that Najib met Altantuya in Singapore.

- At no time whatsoever did Altantuya inform me that she wanted to arrange to see Najib.

- At no time did I tell the police during the course of their investigations about any relationship between Najib and Altantuya as no such relationship existed to my knowledge. Accordingly the statement I signed before the police is complete.

- At no time did Razak inform me that he had sent Najib an SMS the evening before he was arrested; and

- At no time did Razak inform me that Najib had sent him an SMS on the day of his arrest to the effect that he was going to see the Inspector-General of Police that day and that the matter should be resolved and for Razak to remain calm.

Balasubramaniam declined to answer any questions at the press conference.

Following the explosive SD on Thursday, Najib had reiterated that he never knew the Mongolian woman and referred to the claim linking him with Altantuya as "a terrible lie".

Najib also described the latest attempt to link him to the crime as a "malicious, slanderous fabrication aimed at tarnishing my image".

Balasubramaniam in hiding?

RAWANG: All is quiet at the home of private investigator P. Balasubramaniam.

Checks yesterday afternoon revealed there was no one at home, except for two ferocious dogs left inside cages in the porch of the single-storey extensively-renovated terrace house. The dogs were each left with a bowl of water in their cages.

Even the neighbours were in the dark on the whereabouts of Balasubramaniam and his family.

"Normally the family would be here but early yesterday the whole family left in one of their cars.

"No words were spoken when they left, it was as if they were in a hurry," said a neighbour.

Document can be tendered in court

KUALA LUMPUR: A statutory declaration (SD) can be tendered as evidence in court in the absence of the maker.

Kuala Lumpur Bar criminal practice committee chairman N. Sivananthan said this could happen if the maker was dead or could not be found.

Hovever, Sivananthan said the weight to be given to a SD was up to the discretion of the court after taking into consideration all other evidences in a case.

"This is because a SD is an unchallenged testimony where the maker cannot be cross examined," he said.

Sivananthan said a person who swore to a SD was subject to criminal prosecution if the contents were made knowing well it was false.

Compared to an affidavit which is made in respect of a matter pending in court, a SD could be made by anyone at anytime in respect of any subject matter.

"An affidavit is used where the rules of procedure provide for it but the effect of making a false statement is the same with the SD," he said.

Sivananthan said a SD was made to preserve the maker' s position on a particular issue.

Criminal lawyer Datuk V. Sithambaram said an aggrieved party to an SD or the state could lodge a police report to initiate investigation.