• Lawyer: Abdul Razak never meant to hurt Altantuya
SHAH ALAM: Political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda would have hired a professional killer to murder Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu outside Malaysia if he had wanted her dead, the High Court heard.
He would not have been so stupid as to hire two police personnel like C/Insp Azilah Hadri and Kpl Sirul Azhar Umar, whom he did not know, for such a job if he really did have such an intention.
His counsel Wong Kian Kheong said he would not have asked Deputy Supt Musa Safri, who had recommended C/Insp Azilah, what had happened to Altantuya if he had abetted in her murder.
Similarly, he said Abdul Razak would not have informed his family and employees about the harassment by Altantuya, nor would he have wasted his money on private eye P. Balasubramaniam to continue protecting his family after she was taken away on Oct 19, 2006.
“My client wouldn’t be so naive as to direct C/Insp Azilah to abduct the deceased in front of his home in the presence of all and sundry.
“He wouldn’t have openly used his personal mobile phone,” Wong argued yesterday when making submissions on why his client should not have to answer the charge of abetment in Altantuya’s murder.
Wong, who advanced six contentions in his submissions, said there was overwhelming prosecution evidence to prove that Abdul Razak was innocent.
He said the surrounding circumstances of the case and the testimonies of Balasubramaniam and Abdul Razak’s secretary Siti Aisyah Mohd Azlan, as well as parts of C/Insp Azilah’s old flame L/Kpl Rohaniza Roslan’s testimony, corroborated with his client’s affidavit and police statement.
Referring to those testimonies, Wong said his client had never asked the private investigator to harm or murder Altantuya.
He pointed out that Balasubramaniam had agreed to work for Abdul Razak for a “package fee” of RM4,000 until Altantuya returned to Mongolia.
“The waiting game (until Altantuya exhausted her financial resources so that she would return to Mongolia) adopted by my client clearly proves that he had no mens rea (criminal intent) to harm the deceased,” the lawyer argued.
Wong said Siti Aisyah, who had worked with his client for about three years, had opined that Abdul Razak was a good employer who was not violent and that she did not believe he would have abetted in the murder.
“Abdul Razak’s non-violent nature and disposition clearly supports his innocence,” he said.
Wong’s other contention was that there was no direct or circumstantial evidence to prove that his client had committed the abetment charge.
He also argued that the totality of the prosecution evidence suggested that Abdul Razak was innocent and that there was more than a reasonable doubt regarding his guilt of the crime.
In addition, the lawyer contended that the abetment charge was defective and that an adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution for its failure to call certain material witnesses or explain how a telephone log tendered to court had stated that a mobile phone number registered to someone else belonged to his client.
Wong continues his submissions today.
No comments:
Post a Comment