DID the police commission agree cops should continue investigating into deaths in police custody?

Yes, it did.

After reviewing several such cases, the police commission recommended “the investigation into the death of the suspect should not be undertaken by a police officer in the same police unit …”

I take that to mean that the commission said cops could investigate their own so long as the investigators were from another unit.

“Police commission” designates the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysian Police Force, which issued the report in 2005.

The Police Commission proposed the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC). The IPCMC was to focus on the detection and prevention of serious misconduct, using means such as receiving complaints, auditing, investigating, and monitoring.

The Police Commission proposed some changes to the criminal procedure code (CPC), chapter 32, which covers inquests. It did not propose to move responsibility for investigating deaths in police custody from the police to the IPCMC.

But I – and many others – think the responsibility must be moved from the police to the IPCMC. Why?

Because public confidence in the police investigating themselves is near-zero. I’ve personally observed the results of biased police work in the Suhakam inquiry into the disappearances of Amri Che Mat and Raymond Koh, and in every coronial inquest hearing I’ve observed.

But I’ll make my point through a case I didn’t observe “live”.

It’s the case of Syed Azlan, the 25-year-old welder who died at 5.30am on November 3, 2014, about four hours after he was arrested  and taken into police custody in Johor. He died from 61 injuries sustained in police custody.

In January 2015, Syed Azlan’s father publicly expressed his dissatisfaction with the investigation into his death, which the police had conducted as required by the CPC.

On January 14, 2015, the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) asked Syed Azlan’s father, then represented by lawyer Gobind Singh to confirm the media reports.

Eight months after Syed Azlan died, when it was clear that the police investigations weren’t going to result in anyone being charged, the EAIC swung into action.  On July 2, 2015, it began an investigation.

The EAIC is the chopped-up, diluted, underfunded, understaffed, overspread version of the IPCMC proposed by the police commission. But, it did good work in the Syed Azlan case, using the powers it is conferred by the EAIC Act although its officers don’t have police ranks. It even recorded112 cautioned statements.

After four months, the EAIC published its report. It documented evidence of misconduct by many police officers. Among other things, the officers had made false reports, destroyed evidence, and hidden a witness.

The public prosecutor (PP) acted on some of the EAIC’s recommendations. The PP commenced criminal trials againstthree officers.

The PP has not succeeded in having the officers convicted. But, the evidence, especially the EAIC report, was enough for a High Court to award, in December 2009, damages and costs amounting to about TM500,000. The family was represented by lawyer M Visvanathan. The Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) did not appeal the award.

Although this was clearly a case of death in police custody, the coroner failed to conduct an inquest. In December 2019 I wrote much about the Syed Azlan case.

My point is that there was an independent investigation using police powers. By an agency which doesn’t report to the inspector-general of police. And it showed the police investigation was a sham.

Would an investigation by a team from another “police unit’ have produced a better outcome? I don’t think so. What do you think? – June 9, 2021.

* Rama Ramanathan is spokesman for Citizens Against Enforced Disappearances.

* 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.