I EXPECTED a task force on missing activists Pastor Raymond Koh and Perlis Hope founder Amri Che Mat to have a close semblance to the roles and functions of the police’s criminal investigation department (CID).

No one but the CID must head investigations into these disappearances. Given the task, they will deliver the goods.

One just have to look at their greatest challenge in 1998 when they investigated their own IGP (Rahim Noor) for assaulting then deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim.

They collected sufficient admissible evidence that led to Rahim being prosecuted and convicted.

Create a special team of experienced crime investigators answerable directly to the task force. Remove the police officers who were involved in the Suhakam inquiry from the task force. Eliminate all the conflicts of interest.

Bring in also supervision of senior Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) investigators to be part of the investigations. Brainstorm towards making the whole task force potent in adducing the best admissible evidence possible.

If this falls short, then expect this whole exercise to go the way of Teoh Beng Hock.

The facts of the case have all the ingredients of a criminal offence and should be investigated as such, using all the procedures vested in the criminal procedure code.

Only police powers in investigation such as arrest, interrogation, search, seizure, forensic investigation of vehicles and premises, comparison of statements to verify the truth or otherwise, can ensure that the right efforts are made.

Yes, the police are an interested party but we have no choice as these disappearances amount to criminal offences.

The police have been in this position many times before, investigating their peers and colleagues as rogue officers.

The formation of the task force must take cognizance of how cases of interest that are not subject to thorough investigations from the outset have been unable to deliver justice to all those concerned.

The criminal justice system is unable to provide remedy to those who seek justice when the custodians of the system themselves do not adhere to the strict norm in procedural law.

In this case, the elephant in the room is that there are police reports lodged and the ingredients of the offences have been disclosed.

The police by law under the Police Act have to classify it as a criminal case without undue delay and commence official investigations without waiting for anyone else to instruct them to do so.

It is the rule of law. There is already more than an iota of suspicion that a criminal offence has been disclosed to justify this police action.

The attorney-general should not be involved in any part of the initial criminal investigations. The law never intended for this fusion of powers. In fact, they are there to act as the effective check and balance to ensure that the decision to charge or not to charge, will be decided strictly based on the evidence made available. Only then can the outcome be fair to all concerned.

We expected New Malaysia to be in the forefront in ensuring that the rule of law will be the order of the day but they seem to be shaky in calling a spade a spade.

Was it not the first significant promise in the early hours of May 10, 2018, to bring back the rule of law?

Why are we not confident to allow the law to take its course?

I am sure that the police through their own CID will be up to the challenge to investigate this case, whether friend or foe, and bring all the relevant rogue officers to justice or prove otherwise, that the allegations were false.

The ball is actually in Bukit Aman’s court and they do not have to wait for any instructions or orders from any part of the government as they have the necessary discretion of the law to take action immediately. – July 3, 2019.

* G. Selva reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.