Shafee’s and Ramli’s affidavits: A criminal conspiracy?


Mat Zain Ibrahim, TMI

Many people may not realise that the affidavits affirmed by Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah and Datuk Ramli Yusoff, which are the subject of my police report last Sunday, were filed in court by the Attorney General’s Chambers.

Quite simply, what I am saying here is that the full contents of both the affidavits have been vetted, scrutinised and cleared for filing by the Chambers.

The people must also be told that on or about November 1, Ramli had filed a suit against Abdul Gani Patail, Musa Hassan and several others including the government, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the police claiming damages totalling RM128.5 million.

And the person who advised and encouraged Ramli to use the black-eye incident evidence as the main cause of action of the suit was none other than Shafee.

Incidentally, Shafee is also the person whom I’ve alleged in my report to have concealed material evidence against Gani and Musa which Shafee received from me on September 24, 2013.

Now, against this backdrop, Gani must explain how could he have allowed both Shafee’s and Ramli’s false affidavits to be filed in court through the AG’s Chambers? Especially Ramli’s, unless a deal was struck.

What kind of deal or game are the trio of Gani, Shafee and Ramli playing before the public eyes now?

Does this mean that by Ramli agreeing to file a false affidavit in this case, his claims would be settled?

I have stated about this suit very briefly in paragraph 55 (h) of my statutory declaration (SD) affirmed on October 7, 2013. If this is not a criminal conspiracy to fleece the government of RM128.5 million of public funds,then what is?

As the AG who appointed Shafee, Gani should not have allowed the latter to make whatever affidavit he thinks fit, nor can the AG escape the responsibility of careful investigation or supervision over any affidavits that was filed in courts through his Chambers.

If Shafee has made a typo error or whatever error or misquoted a date, then he must be made to correct it by affirming another affidavit.

The AG surely remember when the Prime Minister himself, in his affidavit dated September 21, 2011, misquoted the date Saiful Bukhari met the then Deputy Prime Minister at his residence stating it as June 26, 2011, the PM was forced to affirm another affidavit on September 23, 2011, to correct the error to June 26, 2008.

Certainly the date August 1, 2013, quoted by Shafee in paragraph 7(q)(ii) was still within the month of Ramadan and not already the third day of Hari Raya when I was brought to meet Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Shafee should be made to correct it. If the PM has to make the correction through affirming another affidavit, who is Shafee to be exempted?.

If Shafee will not give the information which the AG is entitled to, or if Shafee insists on swearing an affidavit which the AG knows to be imperfect, then in order to protect the good name of the office of the Attorney General’s Chambers and the government, he should have terminated Shafee’s appointment as the lead prosecutor instantly.

Now that the AG have discovered Shafee’s affidavit to be false, or at the very least accepts that there are strong grounds to suspect that the senior lawyer’s affidavit is false, after testing it against my police report about the matter, the AG owes a duty to the court in putting the matter right at the earliest moment.