KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 20 —  The family of Mongolian model Altantuya Shaariibuu will find out today whether the RM5 million in damages awarded by the High Court over her 2006 death will be upheld.

A three-member bench of the Court of Appeal comprising Chief Judge of Malaya Datuk Hashim Hamzah, Datuk Azman Abdullah and K Muniandy is set to read out their decision via video-conferencing on Zoom at 9am.

Case background

Altantuya’s parents and grandson had filed a RM100 million lawsuit on June 4, 2007, claiming that her death caused them mental shock and psychological trauma.

The Shah Alam High Court, on December 16, 2022, allowed the lawsuit filed by Altantuya’s family and ordered former police officers Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azhar Umar, former political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda and the Malaysian government to jointly pay RM5 million in damages.

The government and Abdul Razak subsequently appealed against the High Court’s decision.

Azilah and Sirul were convicted in 2009 of murdering Altantuya in Shah Alam between October 19 and 20, 2006. 

The Federal Court, in 2015, upheld their convictions and death sentences after overturning a prior acquittal by the Court of Appeal.

In October 2023, the Federal Court allowed Azilah’s review application and commuted his death sentence to 40 years’ imprisonment.

Sirul has been in Australia for years, as Australia’s policy is that it cannot extradite or deport individuals if they will face death in that country.

What was argued in the appellate court

Senior federal counsel representing the government in its appeal over its being held vicariously liable for the murder, had argued that the quantum of damages awarded by the High Court to Shaariibuu Setev, who is Altantuya’s father representing the next of kin, was excessive.

They also pointed out that the government cannot be held vicariously liable due to Abdul Razak’s actions, who is a private individual and not a civil servant.

It was also argued that Altantuya’s family would only be entitled to RM1.384 million, rather than RM5 million, should the court decide that the government is liable — comprising RM1 millionin aggravated damages and RM384,000 for the family’s dependency claim, based solely on financial loss arising from the loss of income under Section 7 of the Civil Law Act.

“The family is entitled to only one-third of her monthly wages. As she was not working full-time, her income should be calculated at RM2,000 a month, multiplied by 12 months and a multiplier of 16 (as provided for in the CLA), which totals RM384,000,” a senior federal counsel was quoted as saying.

Counsels appearing for Abdul Razak submitted that the court had erred in holding the political analyst liable for the civil claim, as he had not given any directions for the killing.

They argued that the civil court erred in ruling that Abdul Razak had conspired to kill Altantuya and in ordering him to pay damages, given that he had been acquitted at the criminal trial without being called to enter his defence.

Counsel appearing for Altantuya’s family maintained that the High Court was correct in awarding vindicatory damages, as the killing amounted to a blatant violation of the constitutional right to life and therefore constituted a constitutional tort, warranting the award of vindicatory damages.

Consequently, they submitted that the High Court had awarded not only statutory damages, but also constitutional damages — in the form of vindicatory damages — arising from the loss of life.

They also submitted that the court was correct in holding Abdul Razak liable, as he had provided Altantuya’s hotel address to Azilah during a meeting.

A handwriting expert who testified during trial had verified that the handwriting in the note retrieved from Azilah’s station diary belonged to the political analyst.

Highlights of what the High Court said

Justice Datuk Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera, the Federal Court judge who previously presided over the civil suit at the High Court, had found Azilah, Sirul and Abdul Razak liable for Altantuya’s death, and held the government as being vicariously liable for the her death.

In his broad grounds of judgment, Vazeer Alam said that although Abdul Razak had elected not to testify and denied liability, the court found him liable for the unlawful killing of the deceased.

He said the court had determined that Abdul Razak had a case to answer, having sought the assistance of Azilah and Sirul to deal with Altantuya.

Vazeer Alam said Abdul Razak had admitted that Azilah told him the policeman could “habiskan perempuan itu” (finish off the woman), and the political analyst replied “perkara sebegini kita jangan fikir” (we should not think of such things).

“He (Abdul Razak) nevertheless continued to seek Azilah’s assistance to deal with the deceased when she showed up outside his residence on the night of October 19, 2006.

Altantuya was killed by gunshot between 10pm on Oct 19, 2006 and 1am on Oct 20, 2006, with her remains later destroyed using high-grade explosives at a forested hilltop near Puncak Alam.

“The first defendant (Azilah) did not know the deceased. There was no reasonable motive to kill the deceased, and the only link was the third defendant (Abdul Razak), who wanted to stop the harassment,” the judge said.

The judge noted that, when the evidence was considered as a whole, a case was established against Abdul Razak, pointing out that even his own private investigator had advised him to lodge a police report and have Altantuya deported.

“In the circumstances, I find that the plaintiffs have successfully proven, on a balance of probabilities, that Abdul Razak had a culpable role in the death of the deceased. If not for Abdul Razak, Azilah and Sirul would not have taken the deceased from his residence and ultimately killed her.

“This court also finds the fourth defendant, the government, to be vicariously liable, as the two defendants carried out the killing in their capacity as policemen. Judgment is entered on liability,” he was quoted as saying in his ruling.