新闻

宣誓书揭纳吉与阿旦杜亚性关系<br>拉萨私家侦探爆蒙女案惊人指控

黄凌风

更新: 2008/7/4 3:35 凌晨

更新

anwar ibrahim press conference 030708 02 蒙古女郎阿旦杜亚命案又有惊人揭露!该案第三被告阿都拉萨(Abdul Razak Baginda)所聘用的私家侦探巴拉苏巴马廉(P Bala Subramaniam)揭露纳吉与蒙古女郎命案死者阿旦杜亚(Altantuya Shaariibuu)拥有性关系。而阿旦杜亚更是马来西亚向法国购买潜水艇的中间人,并曾经向纳吉索取50万美元的佣金。

巴拉指出,虽然他接受警方录取口供书时,曾告知纳吉与阿旦杜亚拥有亲密的关系,但是警方却把这些惊人的内容删除,没纳入其供词里头,检控官也没有在法庭上盘问他此事。

纳吉在珠宝展介绍两人认识

p balasubramaniam private investigator altantuya murder case 巴拉(左图)是在今年7月1日立下法定宣誓书,声称他曾告知警方,阿都拉萨告诉他说,本身是在新加坡的一场钻石珠宝展中,经由纳吉介绍才认识阿旦杜亚。

巴拉在宣誓书中指出,纳吉要求阿都拉萨好好照顾阿旦杜亚,并满足她在金钱上的要求,勿让她骚扰他,因为他现今已是副首相。阿都拉萨也说,阿旦杜亚曾索取50万美元的潜水艇交易佣金。

阿都拉萨告诉他,纳吉曾与阿旦杜亚进行性交,而阿旦杜亚也愿意进行肛交(susceptible to anal intercourse)。

此外,阿都拉萨更自揭,三人曾经在巴黎共进晚餐。

拉萨被捕当日纳吉见总警长

巴拉也宣称,当阿都拉萨在2006年11月8日被捕当日的凌晨6点30分,他正与阿都拉萨及律师在一起。阿都拉萨通知他说,他曾在前一晚发送短讯给纳吉,因为他拒绝相信本身将会被逮捕,但是却未接获任何的回应。

abdul razak baginda altantuya mongolian case 040607 lead 结果阿都拉萨(右图)过后,在凌晨7点30分接获纳吉的回覆,阿都拉萨向巴拉及律师展示这份短讯,内容是“我将会在今早11点会见总警长。。问题将会被解决。。。保持冷静。”。

此外,当阿旦杜亚失踪后的数天,她的女性朋友与私家侦探(洪忠明)曾经找上阿都拉萨的家门闹事。巴拉传召警察后不久,一辆巡逻车就抵达现场,接着一名来自金马区警局,负责调查阿旦杜亚失踪投报的警官也抵达。巴拉告诉当时在家里的阿都拉萨,他家门口所发生的事情。

结果拉萨致电一名副警监慕沙沙菲里(DSP Musa Safri),后者回电说,慕沙沙菲里将会致电给他,要求后者将电话交给该名金马区警局警官。巴拉过后接到慕沙沙菲里的来电,然后把电话交给有关警官。在3至4分钟的通话后,该警官叫那些女人离去,并且在隔天才去找他。巴拉相信慕沙沙菲里就是纳吉的随扈。

接着巴拉在武吉阿曼被盘问长达7天,并在2006年11月尾录取口供。他说,已把一切所知道的事情,包括拉萨与阿旦杜亚所告诉他,有关他们与纳吉的关系,统统告诉警方。但是,当他签署口供书时,这些资料却被删除了。

可能还有人涉案,促重启调查

巴拉指出,他之所以作出这份宣誓书,是要针对有关当局的阿旦杜亚命案调查手法表示不满。他也要提醒有关当局,除了这三名被告之外,可能还有其他的人涉及蒙古女郎命案。

他也要通过这份宣誓书,敦促有关当局马上重新开启针对蒙古女郎命案的调查,以便新证据能够提呈上庭。

altantuya razak baginda mongolian murder 250607 shame 他重申,作为一名曾经服务长达17年的皇家马来西亚警察成员,他很肯定,若之前没接获来自上司明确的指示,任何一名警员都不会对一个人的头部开枪或炸毁他们的身体。

他也关注,若阿兹拉及西鲁不必自辩的话,他们将不必宣誓及供出究竟是从何接获指示以及究竟是谁给他们指示。

涉及炸尸案的三名被告分别是:第一被告,首席警长阿兹拉哈德里(Azilah bin Hadri),第二被告,警员西鲁阿兹哈乌玛(Sirul Azhar Umar)及第三被告,政治分析员阿都拉萨。前两人被提控谋杀阿旦杜亚,阿都拉萨则被提控教唆两人谋杀。阿兹拉及西鲁隶属警方特别行动组组员,负责保护正副首相和部长,至于阿都拉萨则是纳吉的重要智囊。

安华:警方压制蒙女命案证据

巴拉苏巴马廉今日是在公正党总部召开记者会,做出这项惊人揭露。不过巴拉并未读出有关的宣誓书,而是在发出宣誓书给记者后,才回答媒体的提问。

巴拉是在本身的律师艾梅力(Americk Sidhu)、公正党实权领袖安华、公正党副主席西华拉沙的陪同下召开记者会。

安华也在记者会上,质疑警方在调查蒙古女郎命案时压制证据,导致有关当局临时撤换主审法官和主控官。他也质疑纳吉对外宣称不曾见过阿旦杜亚的说法,是公然撒谎。

纳吉早前,曾多次对外否认他涉及炸尸案,并表示他不认识及不曾见过阿旦杜亚。

不识蒙女不涉佣金,纳吉撒谎?

anwar ibrahim press conference 030708 03 安华(右图)针对巴拉宣誓书所揭露的内情,所提出的5项质疑是:

1)警方调查官和检控官压制证据,这种事肯定是在高级公务员如总警长和总检察长的知情下这么做的。

2)压制证据是否导致临时更换主控官的背后原因?原本负责检控阿旦杜亚案件的总检察署刑事组主任尤索夫再纳(Yusof Zainal Abiden)完全被边缘化,更导致他和本来负责的主控官沙烈胡丁(Sallehudin Saidin)在数个月后提出要提早退休。

3)令人生疑的是,2007年3月突然撤换听审法官,其真正原因是什么?

4)纳吉说,他从来不曾见过阿旦杜亚,他是否在撒谎?

5)纳吉说,他没有涉及任何潜水艇交易的佣金,他是否在撒谎?

主流媒体不准刊登纳吉名字?

安华也要求当局成立一个皇家委员会调查蒙古女郎命案,因为此案已经严重影响我国司法制度的廉正与公信力,警方、总检察署及司法制度的形象更是严重受损。

“巴拉所揭露的证据,证明我们一直以来的说法,即阿旦杜亚命案未受到妥善的调查,目前的调查与审讯,看来是一出事先安排好的剧本及结果。”

anwar ibrahim press conference 030708 04 安华表示,巴拉是在大约5天前,主动联络其辩护律师西华拉沙,而他本身是在昨天才看到这份法定宣誓书。

他表示,他知道主流媒体已经接到命令,不可以刊登纳吉的名字,以便所有犯罪的高官免遭责罚。

【点击观赏记者会10分钟片段】

以下是记者会上的精彩问答录:

问:为何巴拉那么久才挺身揭露此事?

艾梅力:我可以代表当事人回答此问题,原因很简单,因为我们在等待审讯,有关审讯是在近期才进行,他非常惊讶他所提的口供没有被纳入,所以才做出法定宣誓书。

问:既然他明知道其关于纳吉部分的供词,没有被纳入口供书里,为何他还要签名?

艾梅力:巴拉表示,他当时已被警方扣留长达7天,他只想要回家,与其跟警方争辩口供书的内容,倒不如快点回家。

问:所以,他是否受到强逼签署口供书?

巴拉:没有。

问:这是一个非常重要的口供,既然你没有被强迫签名,为何只是为了要回家就去签呢?

巴拉:在我被扣留期间,我本来应该去印度进行48天的祈祷,而且我在扣留所里也没有获得良好的素食供应。所以,在7天扣留期结束后,他们拿了口供书要我签名,我看过了,有提出质问,但是有关警员要我签名时,却用一张白纸遮住他们的名字和警阶,就要我签名。作为一名被扣留者,如果你有被扣留的经验,你肯定会签名的。因为我还有3名孩子。他们根本没有理由扣留我,根本没有理由。我是在第302条文下被捕,有何理由我在302条文下被捕?我是拉萨的私家侦探,没有理由在302条文下被捕的。我根本就不应该在扣留所里。他们可以每天打电话给我录取口供。沙烈胡丁录取了73页的口供,但是他却没有上庭,已经被撤换了,为何呢?

问:当原有的主控官沙烈胡丁向你录取口供时,这段内容是否在里面?

巴拉:我想是的。

安华:我有过在扣留所里的经验,所以我了解。一些记者没有这种经验,也不应该有这种经验。对我们这些被扣留过的人来说,这是不同的,我们身同感受。

巴拉:补充的是,我在武吉阿曼被扣留的地方,亦是安华当初被扣留时的扣留所。

安华:(握手)恭喜你,我也是在302条文的谋杀罪下被扣留。

柏特拉宣誓书非安华策划

问:纳吉是否知道,你究竟知晓多少事,是否会导致他向你报复?

安华:纳吉的职员知道我与拉惹柏特拉有联系,他们以为拉惹柏特拉的法定宣誓书是我计划的一部分,这是不正确的,但是这却引起他们的反击,以为我会继续借阿旦杜亚的案件去羞辱他,甚至导致他倒台。所以,我之前曾说过,我相信总检察长、总警长与纳吉的同党涉及这一系列对我的攻击。

问:你是在什么时候获得这个消息的?

安华:(询问西华拉沙)我大概在5天前获知此事,在昨天看到有关宣誓书。

问:是你或巴拉主动联络对方?

安华:是巴拉联络西华拉沙的。

未来数日还会提更多根据

问:目前这一切只是法定宣誓书,你有没有其他证据呢?

安华:我们将在近期内提出其他证据,不会就此结束,我们不只是要测试其神经线,首相曾经表示一切必须要专业。虽然他曾向(公正党主席)阿兹莎保证(安华的安全),当然她们感谢这个保证,但是他却在10分钟后发表声明说,“我对总检察长与总警长完全有信心”,我不知道他什么意思。

我拥有足够的证据证明,总检察长与总警长涉及在我的案件中伪造证据,但是你却说对他们完全有信心。其他的证据将在未来数天内提出,你们耐心等待吧,就好像林甘影片案件那样。

问:这是否涉及你与纳吉之间的斗争?

安华:不是,这无关私人问题。我知道有一些人尝试将这变成一个私人问题,但是这并非私人问题,我有证据对付纳吉,甚至是阿都拉和任何人。我们在这里谈的是我国机制的问题,还有管理经济的问题。

问:这个新证据是否会导致误判?

西华拉沙:在审讯中,若证据被删除会肯定导致误判,因此目前巴拉提出的证据正是时候,将让检控官有机会做一些事,因为案件的审讯才进行半途,目前正要总结陈词。

警方尚未就最新投保联络安华

问:针对你最新的投报,警方是否已经联络你了?

安华:没有,警方还未联络我。

问:你曾经承认去过(举报鸡奸的赛夫)公寓,对吗?

安华:你是代表巫统的吗?(提问者为Agenda daily网页记者),我知道谁资助Agenda daily的,不过没关系,关于公寓和其他问题,我们将在法庭上回答,你去告诉你的老板和朋友,他们犯下一个大错,因为他们碰到这个,我们将会反击。

我的立场很清楚,这是一个具有恶意的诽谤,我拥有足够的证据辩护。基于律师的劝告,我不会进一步回答任何问题。但是我要说的是,一些媒体正玩弄的课题,包括《新海峡时报》,我们决定将采取法律行动,我们将会坚决反击。

问:巴拉,你如何确定有关手机短讯是来自纳吉?

答:因为那时候我正坐在拉萨的隔壁,在一名律师的办公室,他告诉我,他已经传送短讯给纳吉,但是纳吉没有回复。我们坐在一起时,他就收到短讯了,他向我和律师出示有关短讯。

问:阿旦杜亚表示,拉萨是他的男友,但是拉萨却说纳吉与阿旦杜亚曾发生性关系,他们说法有异,难道你不会感到惊讶吗?

艾梅力:这是我一开始就要强调的,巴拉的法定宣誓书所言,只是他从阿旦杜亚与阿都拉萨所听到的事情,并非是真的事实。至于是否事实,他不会知道。

问:这份法定宣誓书是否会提呈上庭?

艾梅力:这份宣誓书的目的,是要将这个证据公诸于世,如果警方或检察署要利用这个证据,随时可以联络巴拉。

安华:这点很重要,他们压制证据,目的是要保护特定人士,只有在获得总警长与总检察长的指示下,才会这么做的。

安华文告原文

Today we witness another episode of a consistent pattern of abuse of power and manipulation of the criminal justice system.

Recently one of the witnesses in the Altantuya trial approached us with detailed information of events connected to her disappearance and murder. The information was shocking.

Mr. P. Balasubramaniam, who was engaged by Abdul Razak Baginda as a private investigator was advised to seek legal counsel and document his story independently.

Today he is releasing a statutory declaration dated 1 st July 2008 to the public detailing the story that he has to tell about what actually happened and what was told to him by key personalities in this saga including Abdul Razak Baginda and Altantuya herself.

These revelations speak for themselves. They reveal, amongst others, the following allegations:

  1. Mr. Balasubramaniam was engaged by Abdul Razak Baginda to deal with alleged harassment by Altantuya in relation to debts owed to her (Paragraph 5 and 6).
  2. Altantuya was promised a commission of USD 500,000 for assisting in a submarine deal in Paris (Paragraph 22, Paragraph 25.5 and Paragraph 28.2 and 28.3 ).
  3. Altantuya was introduced to Razak Baginda by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore ( Paragraph 25.5 and Paragraph 28.1).
  4. Altantuya, Datuk Seri Najib and Razak Baginda had all been seen together at a dinner in Paris (Paragraph 28.2).
  5. After the disappearance of Altantuya, a commotion took place in front of Razak Baginda’s house several days after 20 December 2006 where girl friends of Altantuya and one Mr.Ang (Altantuya’s own private investigator) arrived searching for Altantuya. Balasubramaniam had to call the police. A patrol car arrived shortly. Shortly thereafter an investigating officer from Dang Wangi Police Station who was handling the missing persons report lodged by one of Altantuya’s girl friends arrived. Balasubramaniam then informed Razak Baginda who was at home to inform him of the events taking place at his front gate. Razak then called one DSP Musa Safri who called him back informing him that Musa would be calling him on his handphone and that he was to pass the phone to the inspector from Dang Wangi Police station. Balasubramaniam then received the call from Musa Safri and duly passed the phone to the inspector. After the conversation of 3 – 4 minutes, the inspector told the girls to disperse and to see him the next day (Paragraphs 34 – 38). We believe DSP Musa Safri was aide-de-camp to Datuk Seri Najib at the material time.
  6. Balasubramaniam was interrogated at Bukit Aman for seven consecutive days and his statement recorded at the end of November 2006. He says that he told the police all that he knew including everything Razak Baginda and Altantuya had told him about their relationships with Najib. These details were omitted from the statement he was asked to sign (Paragraph 49).
  7. During the trial of Sirul, Azilah and Razak Baginda at at the Shah Alam High Court, the prosecutor did not ask him any questions in respect of the relationship Altantuya had with Datuk Seri Najib or of the phone call that he had received form DSP Musa Safri (Paragraph 50).
  8. When Razak Baginda was arrested, Balasubramaniam was told by him that he had sent an SMS messsage to Najib the evening before (Paragraph 51). Razak also informed Balasubramaniam that he had received an SMS from Najib and showed it to him; the message read “I am seeing IGP at 11 A.M. today …. matter will be solved … be cool”.

Mr. Balasubramaniam’s evidence also mentions the extent of the relationship between Altantuya and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak. We are not interested in the personal nature of the relationship. That is entirely his own business and hers.

However the allegations revealed by him raise key questions of public interest:

a) Suppression of evidence by the police investigating officers and those responsible for prosecuting this case. Such suppression could only have happened with the full knowledge of top public officials such as the IGP and the AG.

b) The question is also raised as to whether such suppression of evidence was the reason behind the last minute switch in DPP’s handling the case – where the head of the Criminal Division of the AG’s Chambers, Datuk Yusuf Zainal Abiden was completely sidelined from the case leading him and the senior DPP originally slotted for the case Sallehudin Saidin to put in papers for early retirement some months later.

c) Questions can be raised now with regard to the sudden switching of the judge fixed to hear the case which took place in March 2007 – why was this really done?

d) Did Datuk Seri Najib lie when he said that he had never met Altantuya before?

e) Did Datuk Seri Najib lie when he said that he was not involved in any commission deals for the purchases of the Scorpene submarines”

Mr.Balasubramaniam’s evidence vindicate what we have been saying all along; there has been no proper investigation of the murder of Altantuya and the investigation and proceedings in court seem to following a pre-arranged script for a pre-arranged outcome.

This has serious implications for the administration of justice in the country where the integrity and credibility of our key institutions such as the police, the AG’s chambers and the judiciary are already severely tarnished.

Today’s revelations further confirm a clear and consistent pattern of manipulation of the criminal justice system that we have witnessed in this country since 1998.

The allegations revealed here warrant a full Royal Commission of Inquiry.

Share this story