Appeals court defers decision on govt and Razak Baginda’s appeal in lawsuit over Altantuya’s death

KUALA LUMPUR: The Court of Appeal has deferred its decision in an appeal brought by the government and political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda in a lawsuit filed by the family of Mongolian model Altantuya Shaariibuu, who was murdered in 2006.

Justice Hashim Hamzah, who chaired a three-judge panel, said no decision would be delivered on Thursday (Oct 9) as the judges needed more time to deliberate.

“We will fix case management to set the decision day after Deepavali,” he said.

The court then fixed Oct 27 for case management before a deputy registrar.

The other judges on the panel were Justices Azman Abdullah and K. Muniandy.

Earlier, Senior Federal Counsel Nik Mohd Noor Nik Kar, who appeared for the government, submitted that the trial judge had erred when he did not distinguish personal liabilities among the respondents and awarded a global sum for damages.

He said the RM5mil in damages was excessive and proposed to replace the sum with RM1,384,000 as a more “reasonable amount”.

Lawyer Datuk Dr Gurdial Singh Nijar, who represented Razak, submitted that there was no direct evidence that tied his client to the allegations of conspiring to kill the deceased.

His co-counsel Abraham Au also told the court that the award was not justified.

“If the calculation for loss of income had factored in Altantuya’s purported monthly salary of RM6,000, the amount would have been roughly RM1.5mil, which is a lot lower than RM5mil,” Au said.

Meanwhile, lawyer Sangeet Kaur Deo, who appeared for Altantuya’s family, argued that the trial judge was correct in granting the RM5mil award based on his discretion.

“It is trite law that the appellate court would be slow to intervene in discretionary powers. This was a global award that the judge was entitled to make,” she said.

Sangeet further submitted that the trial judge did not apportionate liabilities between the respondents, as it was never pleaded in court as to who had the bigger or smaller role in the murder.

After Altantuya’s murder in October 2006, her parents Dr Shaariibuu Setev and Altantsetseg Sanjaa and her son Mungunshagai Bayarjargal filed a civil suit over her death, seeking RM100mil in damages.

They named two former members of the Special Actions Unit (UTK), Chief Insp Azilah Hadri, Kpl Sirul Azhar Umar, as well as Razak and the government as defendants.

In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs said the model’s death resulted in them suffering mental shock and psychological trauma, and sought compensation as well as exemplary and aggravated damages.

Razak was initially charged together with Sirul and Azilah for Altantuya’s murder but was acquitted at the end of the prosecution’s case on Oct 31, 2008, after the court did not find prima facie against him.

Meanwhile, Sirul and Azilah were both convicted in 2009.

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. Sirul did not appear in court during the Federal Court’s decision and is believed to be in Australia.

Azilah Hadri is currently serving his imprisonment after his death sentence was commuted to 40 years in prison following a review application in October last year. He was also sentenced to 12 strokes of the rotan.

On Dec 16, 2022, Justice Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera, now a Federal Court judge, allowed the family’s civil suit and ordered the defendants to jointly pay the plaintiffs RM5mil in general, aggravated, and exemplary damages.

On Jan 9, 2023, the government filed its notice of appeal against the decision while Razak filed his the next day. Sirul and Azilah did not appeal the decision in the lawsuit.

In July 2024, Justice Vazeer’s 90-page full grounds of judgment was released.

It was stated that RM5mil was “fair and adequate” to be awarded globally as vindicatory damages and that Abdul Razak was “complicit” in the killing, as he was the only link between the deceased and the first and second defendants.