Gani Patail stand accused of fabricating evidence in the Anwar Ibrahim “black eye” investigation in 1998, which stands unrebutted although made by the police officer responsible for the investigation 12 years ago

Lim Kit Siang

On April 14, 2010, in response to my statement “Call for RCI to conduct full inquiry on whether Israeli agents had infiltrated Bukit Aman” posted on my blog on April 10, 2010, I received following email from one Datuk Mat Zain bin Ibrahim, which said among other things:

“First and foremost let me declare that I was the Investigation Officer of the infamous “black-eye” incident,which need no further elaboration.

“My response are confined to certain remarks only which YB made in the above article,that are reproduced below;

“A good case in point was the 1998 “black-eyes” attack on Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim by the then Inspector-General of Police in the very inner sanctum of Bukit Aman, just some fortnight after losing his high positions as Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister.

The top police leadership even got the then Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad to declare publicly that Anwar’s “black eyes” could be self-inflicted, when Anwar was nearly beaten to death by the then Inspector-General in Bukit Aman!

Finally, only an independent Royal Commission Inquiry could delve out the truth about Anwar’s “black-eyes” assault”

“I have to say it point blank that YB’s remarks as above are incorrect. I can’t blame YB for having made such remarks since you did not have sight nor would you ever be allowed to have sight of the investigation paper (IP)which I put up. However for YB’s benefit,I would suggest you have a look at the copy of my letter dated 15.4.2009 which I wrote to the Advisory Board and the various Committees of MACC,to have a better understanding of what exactly transpired during the course of the investigation.

“I can vouch that the top Police leadership too never saw the IP. I never briefed them nor took any instructions from them pertaining to the black-eye investigation. I was totally independent. I dealt direct with the AG’s rep. Tan Sri Abdul Ghani Patail (then Dato Gani Patail a senior DPP in AG’s Chambers ) and no others.

“It is also not correct for YB to say that top police leadership that got to (Dato Seri Dr.Mahathir Mohamed, the PM then (TDM), to declare publicly that Anwar’s black-eye was self-inflicted. It was I who met TDM on 8.10.1998 at about 8.15 am at the PM’s office.(that was less than two weeks from the time I was appointed the I.O.) I told TDM without hesitation that DSAI’s black-eye was due to assault and that the assailant was Tan Sri Rahim Noor (TSRN) himself. And that no one abetted TSRN. I gave my word to TDM that there would not be any cover-up in the investigation and that the IP would be completed in two weeks time,from then, and handed over to the AG for further actions.

“I must say that YB’s remark saying that only after the RCI was formed that the truth was known is also incorrect. In fact the assailant in this case was identified by the Police themselves which I conveyed to TDM on 8.10.1998.

“I have to state in defense of the Police that PDRM are able to conduct a ‘no-holds-barred’ investigation and the IP in point was the probe into the black-eye incident 1998. I assure YB that the comments I made above were all recorded in detail in the Investigation Diary (ID) and the special running report to the AG’s Chambers which are still in the IP. Some parts are attached to my letter dated 15.4.2009 to the MACC.

“One must follow the events that led to the establishment of the RCI by the order to appreciate why it was set up. In short, the delay in completion of the investigation was due to the unprofessional manner the IP was handled by the AG Chambers, and in particular by Tan Sri Gani Patail himself. I can say without fear of favour that if there were misleads then it was Gani Patail who misled and if there was manipulations of evidence then it was he who initiated them.

“PDRM’s position regarding this investigation was firm in that it shall be done without fear or favour and to leave no stone unturned and to get it over as soon as possible irrespective of whoever the assailant be. That was what exactly we did and it was I who recommended to charge TSRN under Section 323 Penal Code for assaulting DSAI well before the RCI was set up.

“YB is fully aware that DSAI have lodged a report on 1.7.2008 alleging 4 individuals namely Gani Patail, Musa Hassan, one Dr.Abdul Rahman Yusof and myself to be involved in fabricating evidence in the black-eye investigations. This case was investigated by MACC.

“On 11.3.2009 YB Nazri Aziz announced in Parliament that a three-member Independent Panel appointed as DPPs under the CPC by the Solicitor General to study the investigation into DSAI’s allegations cleared Gani Patail and Musa Hassan of any wrong-doing. YB Nazri also mentioned that the Panel’s decision on Musa Hassan was “unanimous”(3-0) whilst on Gani Patail by “a majority”(2-1).

(The three persons appointed were former judges Datuk Abdul Kadir Sulaiman, Datuk Wira Mohd Noor Ahmad an Datuk Mohd Noor Abdullah).

“For YB’s information, it was the result of this announcement that I wrote the 15.4.2009 letter to the Advisory Board of MACC. Among the issues I raised was that DSAI alleged 4 people to have fabricated the evidence but the Panel ‘cleared’ only two persons namely Gani Patail and Musa Hassan. So I wanted to know my position and demanded that I be cleared.The details are found in my letter.

“The other important point which I raised in that letter was about the ‘validity’ of the appointment of the Panel Members as DPPs under the CPC by the Solicitor General(SG).

“I pointed to the Advisory Board that as far as I know,the SG have no rights or power under the CPC to appoint any qualified persons as DPPs. The only person that have the rights and powers to do so is the Public Prosecutor which must be exercisable by the PP personally as stipulated in Sec 376(4) CPC. I also stated in my letter that the SG only have the powers of a DPP and as such if the SG was the one to have appointed the Panel Members then,the Panel was not lawfully instituted. As such the Panel’s decisions or findings are useless and null & void. I went further to state that should the AG himself was the one who appointed the Panel Members then the issue of serious conflict of interest would arise since it was the AG himself who was supposed to be adjudicated in this case. Based on my interpretation of Sec 376 of the CPC and having been advised of the same, I am of the view that the ‘clearance’ given to Gani Patail and Musa Hassan are unlawful based on the grounds that the Panel was not legally instituted.

“The other point is that YB Nazri clearly stated that the Panel’s decision on Gani Patail was by a majority(2-1).Notwithstanding the validity of the Panel Members’ appointment, one Dato Abdul Razak Musa(Razak), the Director of Legal & Prosecution Department MACC, have affirmed in his affidavit dated 30.6.2009 and filed in the on-going sodomy case that the decision by the Panel on both Musa Hassan and Gani Patail are ‘unanimous’. So here either YB Nazri or Razak or both did not tell the truth.

“Razak further affirmed in that same affidavit that based on the findings of all the Panel Members he closed the case against Gani Patail only! This could also be taken to mean that the case against the other three namely Musa Hassan, Dr.Rahman and myself are still on-going. To me this is just ridiculous when the evidence on Gani Patail are so obvious and yet the MACC close the case against him ONLY. It only shows that MACC and the Chambers are prepared even to go to the extent of affirming false affidavit to screen Gani Patail from legal punishment.(for YB’s information this Razak is the Counsel for MACC in the TBH Inquest).

Yang Berhormat,I do not wish to write more than I should. I hope my response to your article would not take much of your time to comprehend and lastly I can assure you that the facts disclosed above are easily verified. Apart from that I have given my written undertaking to MACC and the AG’s Chambers that I’m prepared to disclose those facts in any judicial proceeding concerning this matter.”