You are on page 1of 8

Christof Heyns, Esq.

Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions,


c/o OHCHR-UNOG, 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

By Fax: +41-22-917-9006 & Email: eje@ohchr.org

Sunday, 19 June 2016

Dear Sir,

In re: Hussain Najadi


Complaint against Malaysia

I. Identity of the person(s) concerned:

This complaint is filed on behalf1 of Pascal Najadi (“the Complainant”),2 the son of
the late Hussain Najadi who was gunned down in broad daylight in the vicinity of
the Guan Yin Temple Complex in Lorong Ceylon, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on 29
July 2013. For reasons which will be detailed below, the Complainant submits that
the Malaysian authorities have done little to ensure that the author of this crime be
brought to justice. The Complainant cannot exclude political vendetta as a possible
motive for his father’s assassination and, as a consequence, will invite the Special
Rapporteur to explore the matter further in the context of his independent
examination of the case.

1
Annex A: Power of Attorney empowering the undersigned to act on behalf of Pascal Najadi.
2
Annex B: Identity document of Pascal Najadi.
II. Information regarding the Deceased:

1. Hussain Najadi was born on 2 September 1938 in Persia and raised in


Bahrain where he spent the formative years of his life. Migrating to Lebanon by
way of a harsh desert trek, Hussain thereafter moved to Germany where he
learned the banking profession. In 1964, he married a Swiss citizen – Heidi,
who is the mother of the Complainant.

2. In 1969, Hussain travelled to Malaysia where, in 1974, and through a


holding company Arab Investments he set up the Arab Malaysia Development
Bank (“AMDB”) exploiting the excellent relationship which he had cultivated
with members of the Sabbah family of Kuwait to who he had acted as an
adviser.3 The AMDB was given a licence by the Malaysian Government of
former Prime Minister Tun Razak and the Malaysian Central Bank (Bank
Negara) retained a 51% stake-holding in the enterprise.

3. Through the AMDB, Hussain Najadi was highly successful in


encouraging Arab investment in Malaysia. In 1981, the AMDB was publicly
listed on the Kuala Lumpur stock exchange and a few years later Hussain sold
his entire holding in the company to another successful Malaysian businessman
- Azman Hashim.

4. Having divorced his Swiss wife in 1974, Hussain married a Bahraini


woman and moved back to Bahrain in order to live with her. Imprisoned in
1985, on trumped-up charges of embezzlement – perhaps even with the
connivance of his Bahraini wife - Hussain spent 15 years in a Bahraini prison
3
The AMDB was set up through Hussain’s holding company AIAK (Arab Investments for Asia and
Kuwait) of which he was the Chairman and CEO.
until, in 2000, he managed to escape. Fleeing Bahrain, Hussain eventually
arrived in Copenhagen where he found refuge with other Bahraini exiles. While
the Bahraini administration used his flight as an excuse for expropriating all his
property, Hussain was offered a position as a business consultant at Jefferson
Waterman in Los Angeles and sought a “green card” permanent residency in the
United States.

5. As a result of the terrorist outrages, however, which struck the United


States in September 2001, Hussain’s visa application was put on hold and he
was left stranded in Copenhagen until, in 2003, he returned to Malaysia. In
Kuala Lumpur, with the assistance of the Complainant and with the blessing of
the then Prime Minister – Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad, Hussain managed to
successfully resurrect his various banking enterprises and, in 2007, remarried –
this time to a Chinese woman.

6. In or about 2006, Hussain Najadi started voicing concerns to his close


associates and foreign bankers about instances of corruption in Malaysia –
particularly in the defence industry. At the time, the Malaysian Minster of
Defence was the current Prime Minister - Najib Razak.

7. When Najib Razak became Prime Minister of Malaysia in 2009, he


retained control over the Finance Ministry – something which brought him
within the sphere of Hussain’s business activity on a frequent basis.

8. Hussain Najadi made no secret of his dislike for Najib Razak and was
firmly identified as an close ally of Mahathir bin Mohamad who, approximately
two years before Hussain’s assassination, made a scathing attack on Najib
Razak and his rule.

III. Information regarding the incident

9. At the time of the murder, the Complainant was in Russia and, as a


consequence, he has no first-hand knowledge of the events immediately
preceding his father’s murder. The Complainant does, however, remember one
event which, in retrospect, strikes him as being highly relevant to the criminal
investigation which ought to have been conducted. On 22 July 2013, Hussain
Najadi met with the Complainant at the Shangri-La Hotel in Kuala Lumpur.
The Complainant noticed that his father was visibly perturbed. Hussain Najadi
told the Complainant about a business meeting he had just concluded involving
a number of high ranking ethnic Malays who had attempted to involve him in a
real-estate deal. The same Malay people were sitting in the hotel lobby not far
from where Hussain and the Complainant were seated and were conversing
among themselves. The Complainant remembers that Hussain talked about
“massive corruption” and mentioned that certain “people in power” were acting
recklessly and profiting from kickbacks in the construction, defence and
transportation industries.

10. Hussain and the Complainant proceeded to eat lunch at the conclusion of
which they were astonished to find that their account had already been settled.
Hussain intimated to the Complainant that he believed that the Malays had paid
for the food. On the following day, the Complainant left Malaysia on business.

11. The Complainant does not know exactly why his father visited the Guan
Yin Temple Complex on 29 July 2013 nor why he was brutally ambushed.
According to evidence heard at the trial of the individual who was subsequently
arrested for shooting Hussain Najadi, the latter had gone to the Guan Yin
Temple Complex in order to discuss property matters with an individual called
Richard Morais.4 The Complainant does not find it unreasonable to believe that
his father was protesting some form of illegality connected with the meeting
which he had on 22 July 2013.

IV. Information regarding those responsible for the incident and steps taken
by the authorities

12. On 23 September 2013, the Chief of CID in Kuala Lumpur – Datuk


Datuk Ku Chin Wah announced that a Chinese individual - Kong Swee Kwan–
had been arrested in Taiping, Perak and would be charged with the murder of
Hussain. According to Ku Chin Wah, the motive for the murder was a “land
deal worth more than RM100 million in Lorong Ceylon in the city centre”.5
Kong Swee Kwan was subsequently convicted of murder and sentenced to
death.

13. The driver who ferried Kong Swee Kwan to the scene of the crime was
also arrested, tried and sentenced to 10 years' jail and six strokes of the rotan for
possessing a pistol and another four years for the possession of live
bullets.6 This conviction, however, was overturned by the Malaysia Court of
Appeal after it was determined that the charges had not been properly proved.

4
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/ambank-founder-murder-case-witness-tells-
court-saw-hussain-najadi-repeatedl .
5
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/police-bank-founders-suspected-killer-
arrested .
6
http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2016/02/12/taxi-driver-in-najadi-murder-walks-free/
14. Most importantly, on 9 October 2013, the Kuala Lumpur police chief
SDCP Datuk Mohmad Salleh, publicly identified a Malay-Chinese individual
by the name of Lim Yuen Soo who was said to have paid Kong Swee Kwan
RM20,000 to murder Hussain Najadi. Declared a fugitive by the former
Malaysian Attorney General - Abdul Gani Patail (who was subsequently
deposed by Prime Minister Najib)7 and with his arrest sought through the
Interpol red notice system for approximately two years, Lim Yuen Soo was in
due course arrested upon arrival at Kuala Lumpur International Airport in late
October 2015. After eight days, however, Lim Yuen Soo was released because
there was “insufficient evidence” to charge him.8

15. The Complainant feels that two important lines of investigation have
been neglected. Firstly, the Malaysian authorities persistently referred to Lim
Yuen Soo as a night-club owner when, in fact, he is, also, the majority
shareholder of a Malaysian Security Company in which a co-shareholder is the
former Police Chief of Malakka.9 Secondly, although Hussain Najadi no longer
had an active role in AMDB (now known as the AmBank) at the time of his
assassination, he was, nevertheless, retained by the bank as an informal
financial adviser. In 2013, approximately RM2.6 billion [US$680 million] was
deposited in AmBank accounts connected to Prime Minister Najib Razak.
These undisputed deposits were hidden from the people of Malaysia and only
disclosed as a result of the investigative reporting of the Wall Street Journal10
and Sarawak Report.11 Despite public outcry and Prime Minister Najib Razak’s
denial that the monies were held for personal use, the Complainant believes that

7
According to reports, the former Attorney General was about to announce the opening of an
investigation into financial corruption committed by PM Najib Razak:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-28/former-malaysian-attorney-general-planned-to-confront-
pm/7278226
8
https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/318154
9
http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=550702:man-who-
ordered-ambank-founders-murder-connected-to-wife-of-politician-son-claims-link-to-najibs-
accounts&Itemid=2#axzz4BrgSFRw4.
10
http://www.wsj.com/specialcoverage/malaysia-controversy.
11
http://www.sarawakreport.org/2015/11/pascal-najadi-signals-he-will-sue-malaysias-ag-over-release-
of-murder-suspect/
the combination of Hussain Najadi’s undisguised opposition to Najib Razak and
his well-known zero-tolerance and disclosure of public corruption could have
provided a motive for his murder.

V. Steps taken by the victim or his/her family:

16. This petition is filed because of the refusal of the Malaysian authorities
to explain their reasoning for releasing Lim Yuen Soo and because of the
apparent failure to pursue further lines of inquiry for identifying the reasons for
Hussain Najadi’s murder. The Complainant’s Malaysian lawyer –MP Gobind
Singh Deo raised serious concerns in Parliament about the way the matter had
been handled asserting that it brought into question the effectiveness of the
Malaysian justice system. Subsequently Gobind Singh Deo sought access to the
investigative file held by the Malaysian prosecution and police yet was denied
access. Gobind Singh Deo has advised the Complainant that any attempt at
challenging the decision to deny access to the investigative file under Malaysian
freedom of information legislation would be futile – not least because the
Complainant is unable to present himself in Malaysia out of fear for his own
life.

VI. Relief Sought

17. Within the context of the individual complaint procedure, the Special
Rapporteur is empowered to address a “letter of allegation” to the Malaysian
authorities:

“Alleged cases of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions


are transmitted to concerned Governments in the form of case
summaries. They are accompanied by letters requesting
Governments to provide the Special Rapporteur with information
concerning the progress and results of investigations conducted
with respect to these cases, penal or disciplinary sanctions imposed
on the perpetrators, compensation provided to the family of the
victim, as well as with any other pertinent comments or
observations. In these letters, the Special Rapporteur also urges
Governments to take steps that might be necessary in order to
investigate, prosecute, impose appropriate sanctions and provide
compensation in accordance with international standards, as well
as to take measures to prevent the recurrence of such acts”.12

18. The Special Rapporteur is thus requested to engage with the Malaysian
authorities and to urge them to provide the following relief:

1. Full access to the investigative case file concerning the murder of


Hussain Najadi including lines of inquiry, telecommunications analysis
and the evidence which was purportedly insufficient to charge Lim Yuen
Soo.
2. Clarification of what steps the Malaysian authorities intend on taking in
order to identify the person(s) who solicited the murder of Hussain
Najadi if Lim Yuen Soo has, indeed, been exonerated.

Respectfully submitted,

Nick Kaufman, Advocate,


King George 33 Jerusalem 94621, Israel
Tel : +972-2-625-3357 Fax : +972-2-622-3052
GSM : +972-544-863-077 Email : nick@nick-kaufman.com
Web : www.nick-kaufman.com

12
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Executions/Pages/Complaints.aspx

You might also like