I refer to the Malaysiakini report Court rejects bid to call Najib as witness.

New evidence implicating deputy premier Najib Razak in Altantuya’s murder case was thrown out by the court when it resumed session on July 23 to hear the summary of both prosecution and the defence after prosecution wrapped up its case one month ago.

Both prosecution and defence lawyers – traditional protagonists in a criminal trial – had strangely stood on the same front to block the emergence of this new evidence, which could potentially alter the entire configuration of this murder case.

In rejecting the application by the lawyer representing Altantuya’s family and the Mongolian government – Karpal Singh – to re-open the prosecution case to hear this new evidence, the presiding judge Zaki Yasin said that ‘the court will only exercise its discretional right to call for any witness when the need arises’.

But alas, the court is already on the brink of deciding whether there is prima facie case, so if this is not the right time to hear this vital piece of new evidence, then what is? After the accused are discharged for lack of prima facie evidence?

The latter scenario is not entirely far-fetched, considering that the only hard evidence – the confession of the second accused – had already been thrown out by the court at the early stage of the trial.

This is where the new evidence – a statutory declaration by private investigator P Balasubramaniam revealing astounding intimate details – is considered to have come in at the nick of time to prevent a major miscarriage of justice by casting an important new light on the case.

In fact, it was this desire to see justice done that prompted Bala to present his affidavit at this juncture. Bala was alarmed that the court was about to hear the summary, and yet vital information he had furnished earlier to the police allegedly implicating Najib had not surfaced in court.

This might therefore result in the court dismissing the case without calling for the defence, thereby exempting the first two accused from swearing on oath to reveal who ordered them to do what.

It is important to note that Bala was engaged to protect Razak and his family from Altantuya on an around-the-clock basis for periods preceding and after the disappearance of Altantuya, during which periods Bala was privy to many intimate details as well as witness to many occurrences surrounding the main players.

His affidavit was a conscientious account of what he saw and heard over events that actually transpired. It is hence totally unjustified for the court to reject Bala’s affidavit on the ground that it was ‘hearsay’. In fact, Bala’s affidavit contained many important direct evidences.

- Altantuya’s demand for her alleged commission of US$500,000 at the Brickfields police station on Oct 14, 2006.

- On the night of murder on Oct 19, 2006, Bala witnessed the first two accused and Lance Corporal Rohaniza taking Altantuya away in a red Proton Aeroback in front of Razak Baginda’s house.

- On the day of Razak’s arrest, Bala was with Razak in the latter’s office when Razak said he sent Najib an SMS the night before as he refused to believe he was to be arrested, but he did not receive a reply.

Then at 7:30 am, Razak received an SMS from Najib and showed the message to Bala and the lawyer. The message read: ‘I am seeing IGP at 11 am today. Matter will be resolved. Be cool’.

The government’s response to this affidavit has been most disappointing. It not only failed to set up an independent panel to probe the contents therein as required in any country with rule of law, but not even the police or the prosecutors have shown any seriousness to investigate these alarming revelations.

And now the latest, a flat rejection by the court to entertain Karpal’s motion through concerted objection by all participating legal officers who have sworn to uphold the law – prosecutors, defence lawyers and the judge.

Shouldn’t the court have at least postponed the hearing of the submissions pending investigations of the affidavit, however slow the investigations may be?

By bulldozing the case forward with complete disregard to alarming signals that justice might have been transgressed in such an internationally inflammatory case is to expose Malaysia to new depth of international disrepute of our already wretched justice system.

And for the family of the victim who was slain in such cruelest of fashion, what can they do other than to continue to weep in silence?