Front page Abdul Razak Baginda arrives at the Shah Alam High Court with his wife Mazlinda Makhzan (right) and daughter Roweena for the mention of the case against him for abetting in the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibu (inset). 20061229 StarTwo Pg18 - Magean
KUALA LUMPUR: Abdul Razak Baginda and a few others lost in a civil suit filed by the family of murdered Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu, partly because the political analyst had chosen not to testify under oath.
High Court judge Justice Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera ruled that the court had no choice but to infer that the evidence, if given under oath, would have been adverse to Abdul Razak.
The defendants have all been ordered to jointly pay damages of RM5mil.
Justice Vazeer said there were questions surrounding the murder of Altantuya in 2006 and they could only be answered by Abdul Razak, who is the third defendant in the civil action.
“Despite the opportunity to explain all this away by taking the stand, Razak chose not to.
“There is a clear oblique motive on the part of the third defendant in electing to submit that there is no case to answer and thereby not testifying under oath or calling witnesses on his behalf,” he said in a 90-page grounds of judgment released last week.
On Dec 16, 2022, Justice Vazeer, who is now a Federal Court judge, had allowed the suit.
He also ordered the four defendants to each pay RM25,000 in costs.
Apart from Abdul Razak, the family named Chief Insp Azilah Hadri, Kpl Sirul Azhar Umar and the government as the first, second and fourth defendants respectively.
The defendants have since appealed against the judgment.
Justice Vazeer said Abdul Razak was “complicit” in the killing as he was the only link between the deceased and the first and second defendants.
The judge said the first and second defendants did not know the deceased while Abdul Razak had wanted the harassment and embarrassment caused by the deceased to stop.
“In the circumstance, I find that the plaintiffs have successfully proved on a balance of probabilities that the third defendant had a culpable role in the death of the deceased.
“If not for the third defendant, the first and second defendants would not have taken the deceased in their car from the third defendant’s residence and ultimately killed her,” Justice Vazeer noted.
“The circumstantial evidence of conspiracy is overwhelming.
“When the evidence is considered as a whole, I find that there is a case for the third defendant to answer in respect of both causes of action, the unlawful causing of the death of the deceased and the tort of conspiracy to kill the deceased,” he said.
The court also found that the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, both direct and circumstantial, collectively converged and overwhelmingly proved the conspiracy between the first, second and third defendants to cause the unlawful death of the deceased.
“Thus, I find that the plaintiffs have successfully established their case against the first, second and third defendants,” Justice Vazeer added.
In granting the compensation, the court said the RM5mil sum was “fair and adequate” to be awarded globally as vindicatory damages.
“This serious wrong done to the deceased by serving police officers must be condemned in the strongest terms.
“An adequate award of damages to vindicate the gross violation of the deceased’s constitutional right to life would be an appropriate remedy,” Justice Vazeer said.
On June 4, 2007, Altantuya’s father Dr Shaariibuu Setev, mother Altantsetseg Sanjaa and their grandson Mungunshagai Bayarjargal filed the suit against the defendants, seeking a total of RM100mil in damages.
In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs said Altantuya’s death resulted in them suffering mental shock and psychological trauma, and they sought compensation as well as exemplary and aggravated damages.
Abdul Razak was initially charged together with Sirul and Azilah but he was acquitted at the end of the prosecution’s case on Oct 31, 2008, without his defence being called.
Meanwhile, Sirul and Azilah were both convicted in 2009 for Altantuya’s murder.
In 2013, the former policemen won their appeals at the Court of Appeal but in 2015, the Federal Court upheld the High Court’s conviction and reinstated the death penalty on both men.
