Budi95 Shows Indira S Ex In Country Yet Cops Can T Find Him Lawyer

---

 


M Indira Gandhi’s lawyer has accused the authorities of “unforgivable failure” amid claims that her ex-husband has been living freely in the country and enjoying government aid despite a 15-year-old arrest warrant.
A social media post had earlier reignited scrutiny over the police and Attorney-General Chambers (AGC) handling of the case by alleging that Indira’s ex-husband Riduan Abdullah remains in Malaysia and has been benefiting from government assistance such as Budi95 and the Rahmah Necessities Aid (Sara).
The X post referenced a 2016 statement issued by Ipoh police seeking to establish the whereabouts of Riduan, who was previously known as K Pathmanathan, with the statement detailing the man’s identification card number.
The post also referred to a 2020 report where the Home Ministry said police investigations found that Riduan was no longer in the country.
Checks by Malaysiakini on the Budi95 and Sara platforms, using the IC number linked to Riduan, found that the account had fully utilised the one-off RM100 Sara cash aid and nearly 100 litres from the 300-litre Budi95 fuel subsidy quota.
A check on the Immigration Department’s travel status portal using the same IC number also showed “no restrictions” on his ability to travel abroad.
Malaysiakini has contacted the police on the allegations and is awaiting a response.
M Indira GandhiCannot or will not find fugitive?
Indira’s lawyer, Rajesh Nagarajan, highlighted that since 2009, the courts have issued “clear and binding orders” for the recovery of Indira’s youngest daughter, Prasana Diksa, and the arrest of Riduan, who is said to have abducted the child after a unilateral conversion to Islam.
“Yet, despite the clarity of these directives, the police have failed in its most basic duty - to execute a lawful warrant.
“If (Riduan) can access his oil subsidy under his own identity, then it is not that the police cannot find him - it is that they will not,” Rajesh told Malaysiakini.
He also trained his guns on the AGC, claiming that its “silence and passivity” have effectively sanctioned the police’s dereliction of their duties while sending a chilling message that the enforcement of law is optional, and that some individuals are beyond its reach.
“This is not merely a bureaucratic lapse; it is a national disgrace. It exposes an enforcement system so riddled with apathy and double standards that it cannot even protect a mother’s fundamental right to her child.
“It tells every Malaysian parent that the justice system is not strong enough to defend the innocent, or brave enough to confront the guilty, and it tells every officer in uniform that disobedience to court orders carries no consequence,” the lawyer stressed.
Lawyer Rajesh NagarajanUrging the government to cease “shielding” public institutions from scrutiny, Rajesh called on the police leadership to be held personally accountable for every year of inaction and an explanation from the AGC on why it has failed to enforce compliance with court orders.
Parliament, he added, should demand answers as Malaysians deserve to know “why a man under an active warrant can still fill his tank at a petrol station while the police plead ignorance”.
ADSMissing for over a decade
In 2009, Indira’s ex-husband unilaterally converted their three children to Islam without her consent and sought custody through the Syariah Court.
The following year, the Ipoh High Court granted Indira full custody. However, in 2014, the Court of Appeal overturned a High Court order compelling the inspector-general of police (IGP) to recover Prasana.
The Federal Court, in 2016, affirmed the appellate court’s dissenting judgment, with the apex court directing police to arrest Riduan and retrieve Prasana.
Indra filed an RM100 million suit in 2020, in which she named former IGP Abdul Hamid Bador, the police, the Home Ministry, and the government as defendants, after receiving no news about her daughter’s whereabouts.
Ex-IGP Abdul Hamid BadorShe claimed that Hamid, during his tenure as the IGP, as well as the police, had committed the tort of nonfeasance, and alleged that he intentionally neglected to carry out their duties in locating his ex-husband and daughter.
In June last year, the High Court dismissed her suit after finding that Hamid and the police had exercised their duties in executing the Federal Court’s mandamus order.
The Court of Appeal heard on Aug 11 this year that the police do not owe Indira a duty of care in the case involving the search for Riduan and Prasana.
The appellate court is set to deliver its decision on Indira’s lawsuit on Oct 30. - Mkini

---