Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dear Sir,
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:
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.
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
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.
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.
17. Within the context of the individual complaint procedure, the Special
Rapporteur is empowered to address a “letter of allegation” to the Malaysian
authorities:
18. The Special Rapporteur is thus requested to engage with the Malaysian
authorities and to urge them to provide the following relief:
Respectfully submitted,
12
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Executions/Pages/Complaints.aspx