THE sex video scandal embroiling Economic Minister Mohamed Azmin Ali is political in nature and has been since day one, Inspector-General of Police Abdul Hamid Bador has said, brushing off comments by former law minister Zaid Ibrahim for speaking about “political conspiracies” in connection with the case.
Hamid has also taken some flak on social media over the police handling of the case.
“This whole thing is political. I have been urged from day one to verify the authenticity of the video,” he said today in Kuala Kubu Baru.
“Now after doing so, I am being accused of making political statements,” he said, adding that outsiders should not be dragged into internal party politicking.
Hamid said they should have their storm in the teacup and leave it at that.
“Don’t bring your fights to the public, get everyone else involved and make the police waste their time and resources to investigate such petty matters.”
Zaid said yesterday the IGP should conduct a thorough investigation and present the evidence collected to the attorney-general instead of making public comments.
“This is what the public is expecting from an impartial and professional team,” he said.
Nine people have been arrested in connection with the scandal so far, including Perak PKR chairman Farhash Wafa Salvador Rizal Mubarak and former Santubong PKR Youth chief Haziq Abdullah Abdul Aziz, who publicly admitted to has part in the video and claimed the other man was Azmin.
Police released five people yesterday, while making two further arrests. The identities of the two suspects have not been made public.
What gives, Mr IGP?
I WAS surprised by the statement by Inspector-General of Police Abdul Hamid Bador on the progress of the probe into the sex videos.
The revelation of the motive, plot and exoneration of a minister are all so simply put in a nutshell.
Apparently the police have no qualms about revealing privileged information that only becomes available at the investigative stage of any criminal inquiry.
The contents of his statement have fuelled more speculation rather than putting the rumours to rest.
Have the police jumped the gun?
Normally such statements are needed, only when there is too much speculation on the ground that needs clarification. It is opined that the IGP’s revelations were premature.
It would be prudent for the police at this stage to minimise such statements until the investigation is completed and the evidence is discussed with the Attorney-General’s Chambers.
Admissions, confessions and investigative conclusions must be kept close to the investigators’ chest at this early stage of the probe.
Such revelations can jeopardise the prosecution’s case when or if, it is brought to court. Even during proceedings, it takes a great scrutiny by the presiding judge in deciding which part is exculpatory or inculpatory.
It raises the question as to whether those privy to such sensitive evidence are experienced enough to know the requirements of court proceedings and how evidence is adduced.
What may seem clear now may not be admissible evidence in court during proceedings.
Needless to say that gathering such evidence at this stage is the earliest part of how the criminal justice system works.
It is still subject to scrutiny and veracity by court proceedings, subject to cross-examination by both the defence and the prosecution depending on whether the prosecution makes a prima facie case against the accused.
Investigators normally refrain from commenting on any admissions, confessions or motives at this stage.
The right time to say anything at the earliest, if at all, are when charges are framed. Even then words said must be chosen carefully.
The focus from the start of such a high profile investigation should be to swiftly identify those who have broken the law, prosecute them and to secure a conviction.
Action must speak louder than words by letting the law take its course. All the talking by both the investigators and prosecutors should be done in court, during proceedings. – July 20, 2019.
– MALAY MAIL