Saturday, January 19, 2013
Najib, if Deepak is not credible, are you?
“It’s not true, he (Deepak) is not a credible person,” said the prime miniser, and by giving that one-liner response, Najib expects everyone to believe him and forget about the issue.
He seems unperturbed by all the allegations levelled against him. Having people like AG Abdul Gani Othman and former IGP Musa Hassan around him – who are not only ready to suppress but to fabricate evidence to screen the PM from legal punishment as well – surely Najib has no worries.
We can see for ourselves how a cover-up so blatantly done from the events surrounding PI Bala’s SD1 and SD2 which was then swiftly followed by Abdul Razak Baginda’s pre planned acquittal and abscondment.
However there are still some other documents that could be used to test Najib’s credibility and sincerity.
Najib’s own affidavits
On Sept 21 and 23, 2011, Najib affirmed affidavits in support to set aside the subpoena served on himself and his wife to appear as witnesses in the Sodomy II trial. Rosmah Mansor affirmed her affidavit separately on Sept 21 before the same Commssioner of Oath as her husband’s.
Like Bala’s SD2, Najib’s affidavits contained material averments that can be proven to be untrue rendering the affidavits as false. One thing for certain, both Najib and Rosmah cannot deny having made those affidavits. The whole nation knows that they have filed their respective affidavits in that trial.
They are in for a bigger trouble if both of them deny having affirmed those affidavits. Remaining silence on this matter will also give a negative impact on the PM.
About Najib’s name
When the PM took his oath of office on April 3, 2009 before the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong, he swore in the name of Allah (Wallahi, Wabillahi, Watallahi) that his full name is Mohd (Mohammed) Najib bin Tun Hj Abdul Razak.
In the electoral roll, the PM has for a very long time registered his name as Mohd Najib Abdul Razak also. Similarly in all other official government documents, his name is stated as such as well.
However, suprisingly in his affidavits, he affirmed his full name as Najib bin Tun Abdul Razak. Rosmah also affirmed her husband’s name as such without the word ‘Mohd”. If it was a mistake, then the first couple have to explain how they could have made the same mistake at the same time.
If it involved dates or numbers, such mistakes are understandable, but this is about the PM’s own name and to Rosmah, her husband’s name. If it was indeed a mistake, then Najib should have made the corrections immediately.
Without doubt there is a clear contradictions between thefull name given during the swearing-in ceremony and the full name affirmed by the PM in his affidavits. Both involved official and legal documents which can be accepted as evidence.
Even the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong and the Deputy have to provide their names in full when being sworn in, and not any other names, as required in the Federal Constitution. Najib has to come clean on this confusion and he must be decisive. The affidavits were affirmed by him and he should not put the blame on others.
Either Najib admits having lied to the court about his full name through his affidavits or he has to confess having deceived the Agong during the swearing in ceremony. There’s no two ways around it.
He is legally bound to correct one of them.
Najib cannot simply brush aside the name issue by saying it’s a very trivial matter or a non-issue. He must know that in 2000, a former female TV news presenter, Sharma Kumari Shukla, was sentenced to a total of six years imprisonment just because the word ‘Shukla’ was left out from her affidavits.
This is a statutory requirement and not just for the fun of it. For that matter, the Commissioner for Oaths can be charged for failing to verify the name as appeared in the deponent’s NRIC.
Untruths in affidavits
More important is Najib’s statement in paragraphs 5 and 13 of his affidavit. The PM stated that he was unable to give any relevant information or evidence on any issues that had been raised by the defence lawyer during the trial. This is where he was caught making untrue or false statements.
Among the evidence raised by the defence from the very outset of the Sodomy II trial is that both Gani Patail and Musa Hassan have allegedly fabricated evidence during Sodomy I and the Black Eye incident investigations.
Najib was briefed in full of the allegations against both Gani and Musa after the matter was raised for the first time at the Session Court in October 2008. He was convinced that Gani and Musa were indeed involved in some wrongdoings. Najib did make remarks to that effect.
The PM, then still a DPM, was later provided with the full written brief of the matter as well as the products of the fabrications, received and acknowledged by his office on Feb 19, 2009.
The matter was also raised in Parliament a couple of times. A Minister in PM’s Department also had issued a ministerial statement on the subject. So how could have Najib affirmed to state that he was unable to give any relevant information or evidence that have been raised in that trial?
Not only can the PM be taken to task for making false a affidavit, but he can also be cited for contempt of court for concealing material evidence to deceive the trial judge.
What is important to us now is to test whether Najib did give false evidence in a court of law. This is no simple matter where Najib can give another one liner answer like he gave when asked about Deepak Jaikishan’s allegations.
This is between Najib’s credibility versus his own affidavits. It’s only then can we decide whether we can put our trust, well being and our future and that of our generations in the hands of this prime minister.
Come clean Prime Minister!
Najib must come clean on the material contradictions in his affidavits and quickly. He should not even think of trying to spin his own sworn statements.
It will only tightened the noose and make matters worse. Najib should stop taking any more of those foolish advice from people who are stuck in some very sticky situations of their own and unable to get out themselves.
Former US President Bill Clinton was impeached not because he had an affair with Monicka Lewinsky but because he lied to the Senate.
Similarly we are not interested whether Najib knows Altantuya or not, but more about whether he lied when he swore he never knew the Mongolian women. It’s all about his credibility and trustworthiness.
Should Najib fail in the tests against his own affidavits, then he is in for a real rumble. The information concerning Najib’s false affidavits has been sent to the IGP and Home Minister as early as November 2011. So this is not something new or an afterthought.
As a citizen and one who knows the background of this matter, I have furnished the information in writing to the appropriate authorities as soon as it was discovered.
As to why the IGP as well as Hishammuddin Hussein have been dragging their feet on this matter are left to them to explain. The responsibility to act are theirs.They must state their position.
[The above was written by Mat Zain Ibrahim, former KL CID Chief]