Lawyers fear for justice in Malaysian murder trial
Lawyers fear that the politically sensitive prosecution of three men charged over the killing of a Mongolian model has been put at risk by shoddy investigation and a series of courtroom blunders.
They cited contradictory statements from police witnesses and by investigators, missing documents, and different versions of investigation diaries as having damaged the government's case.
The case has received blanket coverage in Malaysia, in part because one of the accused is political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, who is a close friend and adviser to Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak. Also charged are Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri, 30, and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, 35, both members of an elite police unit whose duties include protecting Malaysia's top leaders.
A woman touted as a key prosecution witness, Corporal Rohaniza Roslan - who claimed to have seen the alleged killers with Mongolian model Altantuya Shaariibuu - turned against prosecutors mid-trial, telling the court her statement had been forced out of her.
But more damaging, legal experts said, was that the judge had thrown out confessions by the two officers who led police to Shaariibuu's remains near a forest, then to a house in the city where gold ornaments, earrings and a watch belonging to the woman were recovered.
Judge Zaki Yasin ruled that the confessions were either induced or had been extracted without a proper caution having been administered, and that police did not follow basic rules when collecting evidence.
In another blow on Monday the judge ruled against allowing a statement by one of the officers stating: 'I can take you to the place where the woman was blasted.'
The judge said that too had been improperly obtained.
'We are all shocked by the shoddy investigation and lacklustre prosecution thus far,' said prominent lawyer Sivarasah Rasiah. 'I am afraid the government's case is weakening with so many blunders.
'After a fiery headline-grabbing start, the prosecution case has stalled,' he said as the trial entered its second month.
According to Abdul Razak, who is charged with abetting the murder, Shaariibuu was his former lover. Prosecutors told the court at the start of the trial that Shaariibuu had demanded US$500,000 from the political adviser or she would tell his wife of the affair.
The prosecutors said Abdul Razak sought help from the two police officers to silence her.
This week and last week police officers told the court how Sirul and Azilah took them to the crime scene. But hearings were postponed several times because discrepancies and contradictions cropped up.
Under questioning, police officers frequently blamed memory lapses as they tried to explain the contradictions. There were errors in the listing of addresses where evidence was recovered, the dates of interrogation and confession did not match, names were missing from vital documents and there were contradictions in the confessions.
The trial started under a cloud on June 13 when the original prosecution team, which had taken eight months to prepare the case, was removed, fuelling public suspicion of political interference.
Local newspapers reported this week that two key members of the original team had resigned in protest over how the case was being handled.
The Shaariibuu case is far from unique in this regard, sparking a debate over shoddy investigation and prosecution in Malaysia.
This week alone, two other court cases - a murder and a high-profile robbery case against senior customs officers - were thrown out by judges who lambasted police and the prosecutors involved.
'The attorney-general has been performing as poorly as the national football team - blundering and bungling to defeats in several high-profile cases,' the New Straits Times reported on its front page yesterday.
