The Ramli Yusuff story: the real reason why he was brought down

Instead of taking action against those who are guilty of the more than RM8 billion loss in MAS, the MACC pursued the police officer, and lawyer, who investigated the MAS scandal and who had written to the Prime Minister to recommend that those involved should be brought to book.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

Dato Ramli Yusuff was the former Director of the CCID who is currently under suspension while he awaits the outcome of his trials. While serving as the Director of the CCID, Ramli was charged for various offences under the Anti-Corruption Act. At the time of his suspension he was involved in several ‘sensitive’ investigations against the Chinese underworld and the organised crime syndicate plus against a few prominent businessmen linked to those who walk in the corridors of power (the MAS issue being the most prominent of them).

One such investigation was against the Tangkak (Johor) crime syndicate controlling the loan shark or Ah Long activities — the Goh Cheng Poh case — that had links to the highest hierarchy in the Malaysian police force or PDRM. After Ramli’s suspension, the Ah Long activities were able to flourish unhindered and it soon spread throughout the entire country to become the menace it is today.

In an unprecedented move, the AG’s Chambers refused to advise and prepare affidavits for the CCID officers. The ACA (now MACC) then circumvented police investigations and cleared Goh Cheng Poh. The AG then conceded to Goh Cheng Poh’s application for habeas corpus and he was released unconditionally while several police officers involved in intelligence gathering against the crime syndicate were instead charged for fabricated crimes.

To make it more dramatic, the MACC stormed lawyer Rosli Dahlan’s office and arrested him so brutally on the eve of Hari Raya just to teach him a lesson for preparing the affidavits, which the AG had directed his officers not to prepare for the CCID. In that arrest, Rosli was injured and he subsequently lodged a police report about how he was assaulted in front of his entire office.

The message the powers-that-be was sending to these police officers and lawyer in particular and the police force in general was very chilling indeed. And that message was: do not attempt to touch the organised crime syndicate or else suffer the consequences.

Further to that Ramli was also investigating the losses in excess of RM8 billion that Malaysia Airlines (MAS) suffered during the time of Tajuddin Ramli. Again, lawyer Rosli had featured prominently in pursuing both criminal and civil cases against Tajuddin Ramli in defiance to the AG who wanted to just close the case and mark it NFA.

You can read more about the MAS issue in the nine links below.

Apparently, the AG was very unhappy that Ramli had sent the Prime Minister a letter recommending that those involved in the MAS scandal should face prosecution — as this ‘undermined’ the AG Chambers that had directed that the case be referred to the Securities Commission for the offence to be compounded as a minor ‘technical offence’.

That was when they decided that Ramli had to be brought down.

Three charges for purported non-declaration of assets was brought against Ramli at the KL Sessions Court plus another charge in the KK Sessions Court in Sabah — and the trials were conducted simultaneously.

The charge in KK was for Ramli’s alleged ‘abuse of power’ in using a police Cessna for his private use. It was also widely publicised that the charge named two civilians on board. That has since been dropped and that part of the charge has been amended.

It was also conveniently concealed from public knowledge that, at that time, Ramli was fully uniformed and on official duty as a police Director plus duly escorted by other uniformed police officers while attending pre-arranged and well-documented official meetings with a specified itinerary.

That the IGP appeared as the Prosecution’s 75th witness to give evidence against Ramli strengthened the allegation that this was a conspiracy to eliminate him. This is buttressed by the fact that even the judge remarked that the IGP’s evidence contradicted many of the evidence previously given by other senior officers and Directors.

The whole of the MACC investigation started with a MACC report vide R/No: 163/2007 dated 05/03/2007 serial Ref No. 030757 which was made by a MACC officer named Sok One a/l Esen. It is a matter of public record that Sok One is the same MACC officer who cleared Goh Cheng Poh of any connection with the PDRM hierarchy. He was also the same MACC officer who filed an affidavit to support Goh Cheng Poh’s affidavit to challenge the police officers’ affidavits.

It must be noted that Sok One was also the MACC officer who arrested and assaulted lawyer Rosli in his office on the eve of Hari Raya.

In the report that Sok One lodged against Ramli, he stated that he “received information which stated that on 25/6/2007 Dato’ Ramli Bin Yusuff, Director Police CCID Bukit Aman, had abused his powers as a senior police officer to force the villagers of Kg. Tanjung Labian Tunku, Lahad Datu, Sabah to vacate their land to allow a company Kinsajaya Sdn Bhd in which he (Dato Ramli) had interest in to carry out a project on the said land”.

Under cross-examination in court, Sok One admitted that he had recorded the information he received on a piece of paper but had destroyed that piece of paper. That paper was relevant evidence but had been destroyed.

The purported Informant, a village head by the name of Roslan Bin Abdul Hamid, has since appeared in court to give evidence. Under cross-examination, he confirmed that:

(a)           One ASP Chew Kam Soon from Bukit Aman had come to see him with greetings from the IGP Dato’ Musa Hassan. It is no coincidence that after this visit the MACC action against Ramli was initiated.

(b)           The land to be alienated to Kinsajaya is in Ulu Tunku whereas the Informant is purported to be the headman and representative of the villagers of Lok Buani. These are two different places. As such the allegation that the villagers of Lok Buani was intimidated to vacate their land was false and there was no cause to make any complaint against Ramli.

(c)           The Informant had lodged a police report on 4/6/2007 but had at no time mentioned the name of Dato’ Ramli Bin Yusuff. The extract of the court transcript  (pg. 564) states:

Q:  You did not mention the name of Dato’ Ramli Bin Yusuff in this report? .

A:  I agree.

(d)           There was no incident in the informant’s village of Lok Buani on 25/6/2007. The court transcript (pg 571) states:

Q: You agree between 4 June 2007 and 25 June 2007 nothing happened in the village by Kinsajaya Sdn Bhd?

A:  Agreed.

Q: Specifically on 25.6.2007 did anybody come to interfere with the peace and quiet of your kampong?

A:  No.                 

(e)           A large part of the MACC report was not his words. The court transcript (pg 572) states:

Q: The rest of the words are not your report?

A: No.

(f)            The Informant did not tell Sok One on the telephone that on 25/06/2007 Dato’ Ramli had abused his powers. The court transcript (pg. 573) states:

Q: I ask you the second time, did you tell the BPR (MACC) officer on the phone that on 25.6.2007 Dato’ Ramli Bin Yusoff had abused his powers in the kampong?

A: I did not tell the BPR (MACC) officer that.

From the above, it is clear that Sok One had lodged a false report against Ramli in that:

(a)           the Informant had never at any time mentioned his name in the report to the police or in any information to the MACC;

(b)           the Informant had never alleged of any incident in his village on 25.6.2007; and

(c)           the Informant did not call the MACC or Sok One on 25.6.2007.

It must be noted that the charge against Ramli has nothing to do with any alleged intimidation of any villager of Kg Lok Buani. The charge against Ramli is for the so-called crime of using of a police Cessna plane — which, in the first place, he was duly entitled to, as Director of the CCID, and, furthermore, since he was at that time on official duty while fully uniformed and escorted by other uniformed police personnel.

It must further be noted that ASP Chew Kam Soon had, prior to the MACC report, visited this Informant with greetings from the IGP. ASP Chew Kam Soon is the same person referred to in several allegations concerning the transfer of officers of CID and CCID in collusion with certain gambling and crime syndicates that were being investigated at that time.

Throughout the KK trial, there were numerous instances of witnesses being intimidated and suborned by the MACC including the occasion when Brig-Gen (Rtd) Dato’ Yassin was charged for giving false evidence to serve as a warning to other witnesses not to ‘cross’ the MACC.

Finally, at the close of the prosecution case, the MACC DPP, Kevin Morais, who features prominently in this conspiracy, again amended the charge from “using the police aircraft to conduct an aerial survey over the land” to “using the police aircraft to fly in the vicinity of the land”. This second amendment was made shamelessly after the evidence of the pilot and the co-pilot showed that there was no flight over or at the alleged land that Ramli is purported to have an interest in.

What is even more interesting is the role of the MACC in this whole thing. The MACC is being used as the ‘hatchet man’ in the move to get rid of Ramli. Instead of taking action against those who are guilty of the more than RM8 billion loss in MAS, the MACC pursued the police officer, and lawyer, who investigated the MAS scandal and who had written to the Prime Minister to recommend that those involved should be brought to book.


The billions that MAS lost: the shit is finally hitting the fan

The untold MAS story: part 1

The untold MAS story: part 2

The untold MAS story: part 3

The untold MAS story: part 4

The untold MAS story: part 5

The untold MAS story: part 6

The untold MAS story: part 7

The untold MAS story: part 8