I welcome senior lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah's intentions, malicious or otherwise, to expose my so-called "relationship" with Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim next week.

For his information, I have been alleged and labelled as Anwar's lapdog or "chief barua" and by many other names since 1998. The reasons being:

a) I refused to unlawfully take Anwar's blood sample for DNA tests on Oct 1, 1998, so much so that former inspector-general of police (IGP) Musa Hassan, then the investigating officer, was forced to'steal' the sample from Hospital Kuala Lumpur on Oct 15, 1998 and was ‘caught' by the doctor responsible for its safekeeping. (The doctor then went on to give evidence in court which resulted in the DNA evidence on the ‘infamous mattress' being expunged.)

gani patail musa hassan and anwar black eye incidentb) I refused to conspire with present attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail and Musa in fabricating medical evidence in the black-eye investigation to state that Anwar's injuries could be due to self-infliction.

c) I refused to "tag along and toe the line" after Dr Mahathir Mohamad, then the PM, had declared that Anwar's injuries were due to self-infliction. I stood my ground and told him that Anwar was actually assaulted and I identified the assailant on Oct, 8, 1998.

d) They are also not happy when I opened up investigation papers against Mahathir, the late attorney-general Mohtar Abdullah, as well as Abdul Gani based on reports filed in 1999 by Anwar involving several VVIPs as stated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of my SD (statutory declaration).

So adding another one by Shafee won't make any difference and may come a little bit too late.

'Najib has a copy of evidence' 

The issue of my suit against Anwar has been mentioned in paragraph 21 of my SD, along with the letter of demand by Abdul Gani against the opposition leader, and the suit by Musa in paragraphs 17 to 19 of the same document. (Editors note: Musa subsequently withdrew his suit last year.)

For Shafee's information, then deputy prime minister Najib Abdul Razak had in October 2008 been told how the suit came about, and has the necessary documents. I do not think it would be an interesting subject to reveal.

I would like to point out to Shafee that my meeting with him for the first time at his place was on Saturday, Aug 10, 2013 and not on Aug 9 (a Friday) as stated in his affidavit paragraph 7(q) (iii) page 15.

What the rakyat are interested to know is why did Shafee call me, whom he has never known before, to his office through former Commercial Crime Investigation Department director Ramli Yusuff and later bring me to meet with Mahathir?

What was his motive or purpose to make the call on the first day of Hari Raya?

NONEOr can he now tell the public, is it really Mahathir who wanted to see me or is it Shafee (right) that orchestrated the meeting for his own personal benefit? Until this moment I do not know the reasons for the meeting as stated in my SD.

Why didn't Shafee disclose that he has received the bundle of documents from me on Sept 24, this year which he asked for during the Aug 10 meeting before we left Mahathir's residence?

Can he please tell the public why he has been evading meeting me in spite of my several calls to his office and personal SMSes over a period of time (Aug 10 to Sept 24)? For Shafee's information, I have handed them over to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) investigators on Dec 5, 2013.

I have even told the MACC officer that before leaving the house on the morning of Aug 10, I did send an email to my wife and children to tell them where I was going, whom I was supposed to meet for their records and as a precautionary measure since I have heard a lot about Shafee, though I had never met him before.

If Shafee says that Abdul Gani's conduct and the Batu Puteh issue was never discussed during the one hour or so meeting in his house and later another hour at Mahathir's house, then can he tell what was the subject matter that was discussed?

Two codes 'violated'

Shafee must explain to the court the reasons he concealed a material fact that he has acknowledged receipt of a bundle of documents from me on Sept 24, two weeks before the SD was affirmed and what those documents can prove.

I am sure Shafee is aware that intentionally concealing this material fact from being stated in his affidavit, may tantamount to deception within the meaning of Section 415 of the Penal Code that is "cheating".

Among the documents that Shafee received is a copy of the letter dated Feb 19, 2009 addressed to Najib when he was still then the DPM which contained all the three fabricated medical reports on the black eye and a detailed explanation of how those documents was fabricated and who ordered the fabrication.

This document is by far the most important of all evidence that can be used to prove that Abdul Gani was directly and actively involved in the said fabrication of evidence during the black-eye investigations.

NONEI must emphasise here that at that point in time (Feb 19, 2009) Najib is the first person to have all three fabricated reports with full illustrations other than Hospital Kuala Lumpur pathologist Dr Abdul Rahman the maker of the documents, Abdul Gani (right) and myself.

It cannot be a coincidence that Shafee overlooked to make specific comments on paragraph 36 of my SD which talked at length about this same letter to Najib, whereas Shafee can comment in detail the other less important statements in the SD.

Shafee should know that by virtue of his appointment as the lead prosecutor he is deemed a ‘public servant' and therefore bound by the definition of ‘public servant' under the Penal Code, where, among other things, he is required to give information of offences.

As a solicitor he is bound by the Legal Profession Act (LPA) when acting as a prosecutor, he shall not suppress materials capable of establishing the innocence of the accused person. He should look again at the bundle of documents which he has acknowledged receipt on Sept 24.

I am of the opinion that Shafee has violated both the Penal Code and the LPA.

New SD coming soon

Shafee, please take note that I shall be making a second SD in furtherance to my first especially paragraph 55 (h). I will explain in full the discussion you had with Ramli about his suit against Gani, Musa and several others including MACC, police and the government.

I shall disclose that it is you who told Ramli to use the fabricated evidence in the black-eye case against Gani and Musa, as the main cause of actions and for Ramli to file his suit as soon as possible and that you would tell "them" to settle the suit.

(Editor's note: Musa has denied in a Malaysiakini interview of fabricating evidence against Anwar but admitted he took Anwar's blood sample.)

That's how Ramli's original draft which did not contain any pleadings about the black-eye case, and claiming only RM1.5 million was amended to what was filed on Nov 1 to the amount of RM128.5 million.

Shafee, I may dislike Abdul Gani and Musa for what they did right before my very eyes and in spite of my warnings to both of them, but I will never plant any evidence to implicate them in any crime nor double-cross them.

I would rather remain poor as I am now rather than earn my living by double-crossing a friend or adversary. Lastly an SD can only be declared false if the whole contents have been fully investigated and not merely by what is claimed by Shafee alone.

I challenge Shafee now to demand that the prime minister order a full scale investigations on the SD and he will know where he stands.

I shall scrutinise Shafee's affidavit line by line and record my observations in my coming SD. As it stands now, I can say that his affidavit is imperfect and a load of rubbish and so is Ramli's. I reserve my right to take on the next course of actions through civil or criminal proceedings.

 

MAT ZAIN IBRAHIM is former chief of the Kuala Lumpur Criminal Investigation Department.