Najib Razak: a murderer?

Azilah bin Hadri's statutory declaration was affirmed on the 17th of October 2019.

That date is exactly 13 years since the day he (according to the statutory declaration) received orders from the then Deputy Prime Minister, Najib Razak to murder Altantuya Shaariibuu.

The statutory declaration as confirmed by his lawyer, J. Kuldeep Kumar is in support of an application to review the conviction against Azilah and to order for a retrial.

The reason given as to why a man on death row chose to affirm it only after close to 18 months since the change of Government remains unsatisfactory.

Perhaps he thought that it would be poetic to affirm the statutory declaration on the anniversary of the day he received those instructions.

Perhaps he needed time to detail the events that had happened 13 years ago (potentially with some form of legal assistance).

Or maybe he simply thought that the time was not right.

Regardless of the reason for the delay, our former Prime Minister, who is currently facing multiple counts of corruption and money laundering charges is once again the man of the hour.

Najib Razak's response to the situation is predictable.

The likelihood of him admitting the allegations against him are close to nil, especially when the punishment for such an admission would be death (in a political and also literal sense). Remaining silent for him is not an option and so a public response on his part is as expected, especially when he has sizeable public support on his side (despite the numerous scandals he has found himself embroiled in).

While it is tempting to believe what is stated in the statutory declaration, it is during moments like this that one must bear in mind the importance of the presumption of innocence.

If we are to accept that the presumption of innocence as a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system, then the position that one must then take in light of the statutory declaration is to assume first and foremost that Najib Razak is innocent of any allegation against him.

In an application of this principle, the guilt of a person must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the state using admissible evidence before a court of law.

The problem that arises now is that it is extremely unlikely that Najib Razak will find himself in court on trial for the abetment of a murder that took place 13 years ago where the only evidence that seemingly implicates him now is the word of the Azilah Hadri (one of the convicted persons) who is currently on death row and also perhaps DSP Musa Safri (whose statement we do not know). Unless Azilah Hadri becomes a witness of the state against Najib Razak, it is difficult to envision any charge being sustained against our former Prime Minister.

However, it should be noted that a lack of evidence on the authorities’ side does not necessarily mean that a person in practical reality is not guilty of the crime he is charged with. This is especially true in situations where the investigation process to gather the very evidence needed to prove the guilt of the accused is unduly influenced by corruption, tampering, abuse of power and shoddy investigation.

I am not suggesting that Najib should not be presumed innocent simply because of the investigation process may not have been proper but I am highlighting the fact that just because a person is presumed to be innocent, it does not mean in all eventuality that he is innocent in reality as it could just simply mean that his guilt has been failed to be proven formally.

Interestingly enough, in the eyes of the public at the present moment, Najib Razak is seemingly both innocent and guilty, suspended weirdly between both states.

On one hand, believing Azilah’s allegations would mean that Najib Razak, who is fairly known to be a troll in the present day that sarcastically condemns the policies of the present government is a cold-hearted bastard that deals with those that stand against him without any remorse or sympathy.

On the other hand, such contrast in the personality of a person is not uncommon when one considers other demented personalities in history who have often exuberated a mix of charm and ruthlessness.

As a side note, there are also allegations being made that the statutory declaration is nothing but a political ruse by the present ruling coalition to distract from the problems of the current Government.

My take on this matter is simple.

If you aren’t too quick to find Najib Razak guilty of abetting a murder, don’t be too quick to find that the present Government is guilty of political manipulation when there is no evidence at all.

It may run the risk of causing cognitive dissonance.

Also do note that people who disbelief the statutory declaration of Yusuf Rawther, are not necessarily the same people who immediately jump on to believe the statutory declaration of Azilah. These groups are not necessarily mutually inclusive. (Such logical flaws are often seen in the vernacular school or house rental debate, where those who support the abolition of racial policies are said to be hypocritical as they are painted to be in support of racial discrimination in house renting or the non-abolition of vernacular schools when in fact these beliefs have never necessarily been mutually inclusive in the first place.)

Back to the topic at hand, in any event, Azilah’s statutory declaration seems to have create employment opportunities for our so called ’social media detectives’ (with me admittedly being one of them), who have deemed it fit to make various findings and conclusions and observe each word of the statutory declaration carefully, only for the inevitable finding of uncertainty to be drawn.

Perhaps we all should leave the detective work to the Court but after 13 years since the murder of Altantuya, the question that needs to be answered is whether a retrial of any kind would merely be a mockery.

The allegations made against Najib Razak are no laughing matter and the potential implications of such allegations originating from a key individual involved in the murder of Altantuya, if true, are huge.

Azilah bin Hadri clearly has an interest in the matter as he plans to use the statutory declaration as a last-ditch attempt to escape the punishment that has been meted out on him. To what extent the affirmation of this statutory declaration is solely driven by that desire remains unanswered.

Unfortunately, at this point in time, all one can do is grab some popcorn, speculate and play the role of the observer while we await the result of the court of public opinion.

History after all is written by the victor.

-First published on Facebook.