WELL done, Suhakam! Many will be surprised by the congratulatory note.

For the uninitiated, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia – better known by the acronym Suhakam – is one of more than 110 national human rights institutions (NHRIs), which are members of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI).

The alliance brings together and supports national human rights institutions to promote and protect human rights.

It represents more than their members and staff across all regions, and is one of the largest human rights networks worldwide.

The alliance is a recognised, and trusted partner, of the United Nations (UN). It has established strong relationships with the UN Human Rights Office and other UN agencies, as well as with other international and regional organisations, civil society and academia.

Members like Suhakam are accredited, which takes place under the rules of procedure of the alliance’s sub-committee on accreditation (SCA).

The accreditation is guided by the principles of transparency, rigour and independence. There are currently two levels of accreditation: Status “A” and Status “B”.

Status “A” institutions are in full compliance with the Paris principles – a set of international standards which frame and guide the work of NHRIs. Drafted at an international NHRIs workshop in Paris in 1991, they were adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1993.

Status “B” NHRIs are only in partial compliance with the principles.

Suhakam has been accredited with “A” status since November 2009, after starting out with “B” status in April 2008.

Institutions are reviewed every five years, with reviews focused on recommendations. Last year, the SCA convened virtually from 14 to 24 June 2021 where it considered applications for re-accreditation from eight institutions, including Malaysia.

In its report, the SCA has recommended that Suhakam be re-accredited with A status. That’s the reason for the congratulatory notes to Suhakam, but to be exact, the previous line-up of commissioners.

The SCA duly commends the efforts of Suhakam to promote and protect human rights. The accreditation committee encourages Suhakam to continue these efforts.

However, the SCA highlights that institutions that have been accredited A status, like Suhakam, should take reasonable steps to enhance their effectiveness and independence, in line with the Paris principles, and the notes and recommendations made by the SCA during the review.

The SCA notes that section 5 of the Suhakam Act 1999 (members of Suhakam and term of office) still leaves open the potential for political interference.

The SCA is of the view that the process currently enshrined in the act is not sufficiently broad and transparent. In particular, it does not:

* require the advertisement of vacancies;

* establish clear and uniform criteria upon which the selection committee assesses the merit of applicants; and

* promote broad consultation and/or participation in the application, screening, selection and appointment process.

According to the SCA, it is “critically important to ensure the formalisation of a clear, transparent and participatory selection and appointment process for an institution’s decision-making body in relevant legislation, regulations or binding administrative guidelines, as appropriate.

A process that promotes merit-based selection and ensures pluralism is necessary to ensure the independence of, and public confidence in, the senior leadership of an institution.”

As such, the SCA encourages Suhakam to advocate the formalisation and application of a process in accordance with the Paris Principles, which includes requirements to:

a) publicise vacancies broadly;

b) maximise the number of potential candidates from a wide range of societal groups and educational qualifications;

c) promote broad consultation and/or participation in the application, screening, selection and appointment process;

d) assess applicants on the basis of pre-determined, objective and publicly available criteria; and

e) select members to serve in their individual capacity rather than on behalf of the organisation they represent.

That said, the SCA duly also acknowledges the amendments prepared by Suhakam to its enabling law to address the above concerns and encourages the commission to continue advocating the adoption of those amendments.

There are five other recommendations to Suhakam regarding full-time commissioners, adequate funding, co-operation with other human rights bodies, annual and special reports, and dismissal of commissioners.

The new Suhakam commissioners, who have been much criticised since their appointment two months ago, have a lot of catching up to do to, continue and follow up with the commendable work of their predecessors.

For starters, they could explain to the public the proposed amendments to the act and the follow up to the proposals to ensure the independence of, and public confidence in, the national human rights commission. – August 11, 2022.

* Hafiz Hassan 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.