KUALA LUMPUR: AZILAH Hadri, the former police officer sentenced to death in 2009 for the murder of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu, has applied to have his death sentence commuted to a life sentence.
This, legal experts believe, could indirectly pave the way for the authorities to bring Azilah's accomplice, Sirul Azhar Umar, who was also sentenced to death for the crime, back to Malaysia from Australia, where he is currently seeking asylum.
Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail told the New Sunday Times that Azilah was among some 1,000 detainees who had applied for a review of their death sentences.
The move came about following the passing of the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Bill 2023 in April, which removes the mandatory death penalty for 12 offences, including drug trafficking, murder, treason, and terrorism.
Saifuddin said Azilah, who is on death row in the Sungai Buloh Prison, had submitted the application.
"He has applied for his death sentence because he is here in our prison.
"He is waiting for his (court) date."
On the possibility of bringing Sirul home to face justice in Malaysia, Saifuddin said the Malaysia-Australia extradition agreement could not be invoked in this case, given that Australia forbade repatriating suspects who face the death penalty in their home country.
He said one of the agreement's conditions was to meet the dual criminality requirement, which refers to a criminal act in both countries that carries similar sentences.
"For example, (in the past) the crime of murder in Australia used to carry the penalty of hanging. Malaysia currently has the same punishment for the same crime.
"Now, however, Australia does not recognise the death penalty (anymore), so he can't be extradited from the country," he said.
On whether Malaysia was looking at other means for extraditing Sirul, Saifuddin said: "Nothing at the moment, it is status quo".
Sirul, after being found guilty of murder in 2009, had, with Azilah, appealed their sentences, with the Court of Appeal ordering their release in 2013.
Sirul fled Malaysia, seeking asylum in Australia, when the prosecution filed an appeal on Jan 13, 2015, and did not return when the Federal Court upheld the death sentences.
Sirul, in an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera English's 101 East programme on Friday, had pleaded for the Australian government to allow him to remain in the country, saying it was unsafe for him to return to Malaysia.
Saifuddin said Sirul could apply to have his death sentence commuted to a life sentence.
"The onus is on him to apply via his lawyer for a review," he said.
Also Read: No implication in court: Najib's legal team counters Sirul claims, points to exoneration
However, legal experts said although the onus was on Sirul to apply for a review, the Attorney-General's Chambers (A-GC) could take the lead in the interest of upholding justice in Malaysia.
Lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla said the A-GC had the option of filing on his behalf on the grounds of preventing further evasion of punishment and upholding the rule of law.
The application, he said, should be made after the result of Azilah's application for a review was known.
"The A-G should make an application (to review Sirul's death penalty) and argue that he has to, as the keeper of the law of justice in the country, ensure people don't take advantage of the lacunae (gaps) in the law.
"Right now, we have a convicted murderer living a normal life in Australia. Applying for a review could pave the way for him to be extradited to Malaysia.
"Even though the person who should apply (Sirul) is not applying, we are doing so because we want the law to be able to be enforced against him," he said.
He cited Rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court, which provides inherent jurisdiction for the Federal Court to hear any application or to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or abuse of the court process.
Also Read: IGP: Sirul, Azilah never raised any bribery claim in court [NSTTV]
Criminal lawyer Goh Cia Yee, however, said the A-GC's application could raise a conflict of interest, and that the application might not be able to sustain without an affidavit from Sirul.
However, he echoed Haniff's citing of Rule 137.
"They (A-GC) represent the state; they don't represent Sirul. Because of them, he was convicted.
"Imagine if I shot you, and now I'm in charge of your hospitalisation.
"I can tell you to trust me; I will look after your interest. But you did not even ask to be hospitalised.
"The point is, there is a possibility of that (conflict of interest), (but) it is up to the A-GC to argue otherwise."