Was the decision not to investigate Sirul's alleged claims too hasty? Information about crimes, even if hearsay, should be investigated?

Sirul Azhar Uman, a person tried and convicted of murder and facing the death row (with really nothing personal to gain anymore) is now saying is apparently saying that he was “under orders” to kill Altantuya Shaariibuu, 28, in 2006.

“I was under orders,” he said. The important people with motive are still free.”

In my opinion, as soon as this was reported, the Malaysian police should have immediately commenced a criminal investigation. There was no need for the police to wait for any third party to file a police report. If a first information report was needed to commence investigations, then the police themselves should have filed the report.

Anyway, somebody else did finally file the police report - and the police should have immediately commenced investigations.  

Why? Some may say that the murder trial is over now - and Sirul and another have been found to be guilty. That is true - but if there were other people who was involved in the killing, surely they should not be allowed to escape justice. Note, that the oddity of this case to me had always been the question of motive....Maybe there were 4 people, not 2, involved in the actual killing. Maybe there were people that ordered Sirul to kill. Maybe....maybe...and everyone involved will be guilty for the said killing, and I certainly would want to investigate ....and try to get everyone involved to pay for their crime...

Criminal Procedure Code (Act 593)

Procedure where seizable offence suspected
 

110.(1) If from information received or otherwise a police officer not below the rank of Sergeant or an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of a seizable offence he shall, unless the offence is of a character which the Public Prosecutor has directed need not be reported to him, immediately send a report of the same to the Public Prosecutor, and shall proceed in person or shall depute one of his subordinate officers to proceed to the spot to inquire into the facts and circumstances of the case and to take such measures as may be necessary for the discovery and, where not inexpedient, arrest of the offender:

Provided as follows—
 

(a) when any information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature the police officer receiving the same need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an enquiry on the spot;
 

(b) if it appears to the police officer receiving the information that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding or further proceeding in the matter he shall not do so.

(2) In each of the cases mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) the police officer receiving the information shall state in his said report, if any, his reasons for not fully complying with subsection (1).

(3) Where a police officer exercises the power of deputation given by subsection (1) the subordinate officer so deputed shall not be entitled to use any of the powers given by sections 111, 112, 116 and 117.

It is disturbing to see the report that the Malaysian Inspector General of Police have come out saying that they will not be commencing investigation based on section 110(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code -

The police require "sufficient grounds" to proceed with an investigation, said Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar.

He told Malaysiakini this is required by Section 110(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

"Mere allegations are not sufficient ground. DAP's police report is based on hearsay reported in the media....

....Yesterday, Khalid said the police do not intend to re-open investigations into the case.

Well, when was that police report made? Was the decision 'not to investigate' main too fast?

We also will be interested whether this was a matter that was to be decided by the Public Prosecutor, or is it one of the offences that the Public Prosecutor has previously directed the police need not be refered to the PP? 

Who was the police officer that received the said report - is it not him/her that is supposed to decide on whether to investigate or not?If it was the IGP that was dealing with the report, then it is OK for him to decide whether it will be investigated or not? If it was some other officer, then was the IGP merely reporting the decision of some subordinate officer - ...but then the report said that decision was made not to re-open the investigation (or was the Malaysiakini report wrong) OR maybe the police maybe opening another NEW investigation?

I wonder whether the decision of the IGP is FINAL - or will this decision be reviewed by the Public Prosecutor? or the Minister concerned? Or can we take this to the courts for a Judicial Review? 

If the IGP has the final say on this matter, I would be extremely worried. Too much power then to the police to decide on what reported 'crimes' to investigate and what not to. This is not right....do we need some legal reforms?

Will not act because it was 'hearsay'? - Well, this is very disturbing. So, if we did not personally witness a commission of a crime - then, in Malaysia there is no need to make a police report because the Malaysian police will not investigate? So, if I heard from B that A may have some information of people behind a bank robbery - there is no use making a police report because it was just hearsay? If I read in the newspaper or online about something - no need to report because it is hearsay? I believe this is wrong - and the police need to investigate even if something was hearsay...

Consider this case...

Person who was tried and convicted for this killing has told some reporter ...

The said person is known and is in custody..in Australia

There was certainly a 'big question' about motive and the possibility that it was not a clear cut case of murder...

If I was the police, which I am not, I would have started an investigation - I will talk to the reporter - and I will send a team down to Australia to talk to the alleged source of all these 'allegations'...(In this case, I would maybe also ask the Australian police to be present when I interview Sirul.... just to avoid doubts and future allegations...)

If hearsay is an issue - would it be different if the Malaysiakini person who spoke to Sirul make the police report? - or would that be hearsay too?

What if Sirul makes a report? (Makes me wonder why Sirul is talking now when he is safe in detention in Australia...and not before??)

Maybe Sirul is making wild allegations that are baseless.... but let us at least investigate first before we make any conclusions...

I would urge the IGP to re-consider his decision with regard this case...

Commando killer Sirul Azhar Uman breaks silence over 2006 murder of Mongolian socialite

• 9 hours ago February 19, 2015 10:49AM

Sirul hides his face after being charged with the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu in 2006. Source: Supplied

 

WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT

 

THE MALAYSIAN commando who killed and blew up a Mongolian socialite has spoken for the first time about why he did it.

Sirul Azhar Uman, 43, who is locked up at Sydney’s Villawood Detention Centre after fleeing Malaysia last month, said he was “under orders” to kill Altantuya Shaariibuu, 28, in 2006.

Sirul Azhar Uman says he was forced to kill Altantuya Shaariibuu in 2006. Source: Supplied

The former Malaysian police officer and bodyguard to prime minister Najib Razak fled to Australia in January after being convicted of the murder in absentia and sentenced to be hanged.

He was detained in Brisbane for a visa violation. Under Australian law, immigration officials cannot remove a person who could face punishment.

Speaking about the ordered hit for the first time, Sirul told the Malaysiakini news portal that he shot the glamorous model twice before wrapping her body with military explosives and blowing her up.

Translator Altantuya Shaariibuu was shot twice then blown up. Source: No Source

“I was under orders,” he said. The important people with motive are still free.”

It has long been alleged that Altantuya’s murder was linked to her connections with Malaysian government officials and specifically related to her year-long affair with Abdul Razak Baginda, a friend of Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak. The pair’s relationship did not end amicably.

Altantuya had helped Abdul Razak broker a deal that would allow Malaysia to purchase submarines from the French. It is alleged that Sirul was then asked to carry out the hit.

Abdul Razak Baginda (L) and Altantuya Shaariibuu (R). Source: Supplied

Asia Sentinel reported in 2007 that Altantuya appeared to demand money from Abdul Razak for the care of her child — a baby he may have fathered.

Altantuya’s remains were found in a jungle clearing near Kuala Lumpur. She was shot twice before her body was blown up. All that was left were bone fragments and pieces of flesh.

Sirul spoke for the first time from Villawood Detention Centre. Picture: Tim Clapin. Source: News Corp Australia

 

Sirul was charged with the murder alongside former Malaysian chief inspector Azilah Hadri.

Malaysian Home Minister Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar told the Bernama news agency last month that Malaysia would consider bringing legal action against Australia if the government refused to extradite Sirul.

Fairfax media reports Sirul is considering a tell-all interview with Australian media.

Source:- news.com.au

IGP: DAP report on Sirul based on hearsay

 

 

The police require "sufficient grounds" to proceed with an investigation, said Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar.
He told Malaysiakini this is required by Section 110(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
"Mere allegations are not sufficient ground. DAP's police report is based on hearsay reported in the media.
"Section 110(1)(b) further states that the police need not proceed or further proceed if there is no sufficient ground. In fact, it states that the police shall not do so," he said.
Khalid was responding to the police report lodged by DAP lawmaker Lim Lip Eng this morning urging for investigations to be carried out on the claim by former police commando Sirul Azhar Umar.
In a telephone interview with Malaysiakini, Sirul had claimed that he acted on orders and that people with the motive to kill Altantuya Shaariibuu are still free.
Last month, the Federal Court sentenced Sirul and another former police commando Azilah Hadri to death for the murder.
Sirul also expressed dissatisfaction with the legal process and reiterated his claim that he was being made into a "scapegoat".
The 43-year-old father of two was not present when the verdict was announced and it was later revealed that he had fled to Australia.
Sirul is currently being held at an immigration detention centre in Sydney.
Yesterday, Khalid said the police do not intend to re-open investigations into the case.
"We do not see any reason to conduct a new probe into the case because of instigation of certain parties. We will see first what he (Sirul, right) will reveal," he had added.
Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, on the other hand, dismissed Sirul’s claims as "utter rubbish". - Malaysiakini, 19/2/2015, IGP: DAP report on Sirul based on hearsay