Parti Keadilan Rakyat advisor Anwar Ibrahim's recent call to widen police investigations into the murder of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu is a stark reminder that all is not well with the government's handling of the case.

In fact the standard of transparency and accountability falls so short of that practised by a democratic country that, once again, we are painfully reminded of the perversion of justice that took place in the infamous persecution of Anwar eight years ago.

The injustice then was to condemn an innocent man. This time, perhaps, it is to provide shelter to one guilty of murder.

As in the Anwar case, democratic institutions - the police, Attorney-General's (AG's) Chambers, judiciary and the media - seem to have been mobilised again to act in concert in a critical damage control exercise, upon which may hinge the fate of the country's power structure. However, before delving into the details, let us take a perspective view of the case.

At the heart of the case is Altantuya, a multi-lingual interpreter and translator - speaking Chinese, Russian, English and French. She was alleged to be a lover of Malaysian political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, a confidante of Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Najib Abdul Razak. The pair were said to have frequently traveled together on business trips.

Altantuya was allegedly shot and her body blown to pieces with explosives. The gravity of this lies in the indirect link to Najib, since two of his security detail have claimed trial to the murder, as Abdul Razak has to abetting the crime. The C4 explosives reportedly used were in the exclusive custody of the defence ministry.

Compounding this gravity was another allegation that indirectly links to Najib via Abdul Razak, whose company was the dubious recipient of an exorbitant amount of commission paid in connection with the multi-billion ringgti purchase of submarines by the ministry.

So Najib. who in many ways acts like the de facto leader of the country, has become the ultimate focal point of two explosive scandals, albeit indirectly.

That this scandal touches the nerve centre of the top political hierarchy is apparent from the extraordinary treatment accorded to it by the police, AG's Chambers, judiciary and media.

Questions, questions

Media collaboration was demonstrated in the blackout of news on Anwar's press conference on Jan 10, where apart from calling for wider probe, he also bombarded the authorities with a series of incisive questions which would have hit headlines if Malaysia has a free press.

The police

Starting with the police, why was Najib not questioned? (Reuters on Jan 10 quoted a government source as saying that no one else had been questioned other than the three accused.) The police had no possible justification not to question Najib, in view of his connection to the accused and custody of the explosives.

Keep in mind that the security personnel are from the Special Action Force where they were trained for extreme duties and absolute obedience, and that they had no apparent motive on their own to attack Altantuya. Who ordered them to abduct her while she was attempting to enter Abdul Razak's house and to kill her?

Shouldn't the police have been curious enough to find out from the bodyguards' immediate boss (Najib) as to whether they may have been involved? What inference can we draw when the police failed to act as they should have with regard to Najib? Or do the police know something the public don't?

Why have the police been tightlipped over details of the case, with the head of the criminal investigations department (Christopher Wan) remaining steadfastly mum? Why has the Inspector-General of Police (Musa Hassan) taken the most unusual, and in fact, unprecedented measure of taking personal charge of this investigation?

Is it proper for the police to hide crucial facts of the case when the news have been hogging international headlines, casting aspersion on the government's integrity?

As internal security minister with oversight of the police force, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is directly responsible for proper police conduct over this investigation. Although he was quick to pledge a no-holds-barred probe and due punishment to the culprits irrespective of status, his words have not been matched by deeds.

Prosecutor and judiciary

Murder is a non-bailable offence. When Abdul Razak was granted bond (without security) on Nov 23 and had bail granted on Dec 14 on the ground of suffering from bronchitis, both the prosecutor and the judge were criticised because bail is rarely granted in such circumstances, save on grounds of extreme health hazard.

On Jan 5, Abdul Razak's application for extension of bail was rejected, to almost everyone's shock. However, the rejection was not against the application per se, but against oral submission of the application. The judge then fixed Jan 19 to hear arguments based on a written application.

However, Abdul Razak appealed and was granted a hearing by the Court of Appear on Jan 11. It rejected the appeal on the ground that there was no judgment for the court to deliberate, as the high court has yet to hear the application on Jan 19.

Apart from dereliction of duty in failing to oppose bail, the deputy public prosecutor (Salehuddin Saidin) had ruled out possible involvement of parties other than the three accused when the investigation is manifestly incomplete. This has fanned further speculation on the existence of a master-mind behind the three accused.

Perhaps what disappoints most is the distant date fixed for the hearing - March 10, 2008. Judge KN Segara's explanation of 'first come, first served' cuts no ice.

For an important case like this, where the integrity of the highest strata of the government is brought into question at home and abroad, the court has every justification to allocate priority, since it is in the public interest to have justice served to regain public confidence at the earliest.

Here again, we are reminded of the contrast in treatment accorded by the court between the Anwar trial for corrupt practice and the Altantuya murder trial. If the Anwar trial could commence in just over a month from his arrest, why can't the murder trial, which involves an offence many times more serious, be also given an expeditious trial?

Does this not confirm the oft-repeated accusation that our judiciary acts under the dictates of the Executive - insignificant charges have been tried on the express lane, while trials for grave charges can be pushed off if this suits political interests?

Submarine purchase

The key to any murder case is the motive. This is where we have to bring in the submarines deal scandal, for Altantuya's apparent part in it may provide important clues.

Based on an interview with Altantuya' father Professor Shaariibuu, she had interpreting for Abdul Razak at high-level meetings and negotiations. This apparently included the defence ministry's purchase of submarines, a deal handled by Abdul Razak's company. The professor further claimed that Altantuya's final trip to Malaysia was to demand settlement of fees due to her.

Such a demand would have been treated as an ordinary affair, if not for the fact that there could be a dark side to this deal. I would not be far fetched to imagine that she could have been promised a more than generous fee, while being privy to information that cannot be leaked without causing grievous damage to others.

It is obvious that investigations into the murder case cannot be meaningfully pursued without at the same time probing the submarine deal. In this connection, the participation of our docile Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) is long overdue.

This is the time that prime minister must show his leadership by personally ensuring that the police and ACA work together to expeditiously secure a full and fair investigation into the murder case as well as to bring the corrupt to book in the submarine scandal.

He should further ensure that the judiciary and AG's Chambers be allowed to deliver justice without interference from the Executive.