Where are the promised institutional reforms?


WITH the charges of supporting the defunct Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam against the 12 men dramatically dropped, questions have now been raised over the checks and balances for our criminal justice system.

The attorney-general (A-G) has concluded there is no chance of securing a conviction in all the charges against the 12.

So why they were charged in the first place?

For the moment, the A-G is still accountable for any shortcomings in this issue as all aspects of prosecution is the sole prerogative of his office. The burden lies squarely upon his shoulders and no one else’s.
 
The legal fraternity has rightly demanded these answers and society has the right to know. The investigators having done their part obtained the approval to initiate proceedings from chambers.

One would have to assume that chambers would have scrutinised the evidence then, as it acts as a significant check on the investigative limb of the criminal justice system.

How and where did it go wrong, or did it? Were there any indications of political influence in the decision to initiate proceedings?

Why did it take the A-G almost 5 months to come to his conclusion that the evidence would be insufficient to meet the rigours of making out a prima facie case, when this should have been at the forefront when deciding to frame charges?

So many questions are only beginning to emerge and they will accelerate once the 12 are released and begin to seek legal redress. I believe the answers will eventually become clear as legal recourses are sought by those concerned.

However, as an immediate effect of this conundrum of sorts, the campaign promise of institutional reforms is ringing louder than ever.

A clear consequence is the need to separate the public prosecutor’s role and function from the A-G as promised by the new government. It is gradually becoming more urgent as we head towards the third year of New Malaysia and its promise of institutional reforms.

We need to replace preventive laws such as the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) with relevant acts that provide all detainees (however serious their crimes may be) with recourse to judicial remedy during the course of investigations. It is the fundamental belief that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

It is not feasible anymore to accept claims from investigators or the executive on national security without transparency of credible evidence. There has been too many incidents in the past using the same reason to further the political interests of those in the corridors of power.

The police, however, should not be left in the lurch in trying to carry out their duties to the best of their capabilities. New laws have to be enacted to reflect the seriousness of a crime and the courts must play a pivotal role in remedial recourse at any stage of investigations.

The police, who would be supported in their efforts to gather admissible evidence, would then also be held to account early by the judiciary if there are any indication of abuse of power.

The influence of the executive over the police must be reduced and replaced by other checks and balances linked in associating close proximity to the parliament. Transparency, accountability and responsibility must start at the outset of investigations when a complaint is initiated.

This will ensure that enforcement powers of any agency will not easily in future, be influenced by any external factors allowing the limbs within the criminal  justice system to carry out their roles and functions so as to ensure that the rule of law remains supreme. – February 23, 2020.

*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.


Sign up or sign in here to comment.


Comments


  • Looking clearer now. TunM wasn't really interested in reforms.

    Posted 4 years ago by G GHAZALI · Reply