PKR MPs question closure of PI Bala’s case
Two PKR leaders question the government’s motives for closing the private investigator’s case, regarding slain Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu.
(Free Malaysia Today) – PKR leaders today questioned the government’s motive in closing the case involving private investigator P Balasubramaniam.
Batu MP Tian Chua and Subang MP R Sivarasa said the government’s reasons for closing the case, as provided in a written parliamentary response yesterday, was unacceptable.
Balasubramaniam had linked Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak to murdered Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu in a statutory declaration (SD) made in October 2008.
The next day, he retracted the SD by making another SD, which denied the contents of the first.
In October 2009, Balasubramaniam emerged from hiding, and stood by his SD implicating Najib, claiming that he was offered money to retract the document.
Chua had asked a question in Parliament on Monday regarding the failure of the deputy public prosecutor to act on Balasubramaniam’s case.
In a written response, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Abdul Aziz said the case against Balasubramaniam was closed because both his statuary declarations did not have “any impact on the Altantuya trial”.
However, Chua disagreed.
“We don’t know if either one of his statements would have had an impact on the trial. The minister cannot make his own conclusions on judicial matters,” he said today.
Chua also questioned the motive of the government in handling the matter, saying that if one of Balasubramaniam’s contradictory statements were found to be false, then that should be used as a basis to file a case against the private investigator, regardless of the impact it had on the Altantuya case.
‘Nazri wrong on Section 199′
The reasons provided by Nazri as to why Balasubramaniam cannot be prosecuted also drew criticism.
Nazri had stated that according to Section 199 of the Penal Code, action can only be taken against providing false statements if they were made with the intention of using it for court proceedings.
He added that the private investigator’s statutory declarations were not made for any court proceedings, so action cannot be taken against him.
Sivarasa took issue with this, arguing that Section 199 does not explicitly state that a statement must be made with the intention of using it in court.
