MAY 4 — The creation of the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) has been seen largely as a compromise by the Tun Abdullah Badawi administration.

I can recall the strong opposition from then Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Musa Hassan over the recommendation by a Royal Commission for the establishment of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC). The mounting custodial deaths issue was the key driver.

Musa felt it was unfair that the police were “singled” out amidst more than a dozen other federal enforcement agencies, and was concerned that it could affect their morale. He was adamant and the administration buckled, and the statutory body, EIAC, was born in 2011.
They have an oversight on integrity over 19 enforcement agencies.

The very fact that only the police authority covers the entire fabric of civil society and that is why all major cities in the world have independent dedicated police “integrity commissions” was inexplicably lost on  Abdullah came crunch time.

So, I guess we have to make do, for now.

Meant for the long-term good of the police

Last week, at a press conference presided by EAIC chairman Datuk Yaacob Mohd Sam, he said the commission is recommending criminal charges against six police personnel for fabricating false information and tampering with the lock-up station diary. This is with regards the Dharmendran death in custody case of 2013.

Three of those recommended are among the four acquitted by the High Court on the murder charge but revoked by the Appeal Court and ordered to make their defence later this month.
Those named included a senior assistant commissioner, an assistant commissioner, a superintendent and an inspector. I was a little stunned, certainly not by the seniority of police officers implicated, but by the seriousness the EAIC commissioners are treating their assignment. You gave us hope, man!

Then our IGP raised the issue of sub judice as the case will be heard in the Appeal Court soon. He also thought the EAIC should not have accepted the complaint in the first place when the case was already due to be heard in the High Court then.

There have been ongoing debates on the redundant usage of “sub judice” in Malaysia when all trials are non-jury trials. Public discussions may misdirect laymen jury but surely not possible with our trained and learned judges. The Attorney-General (AG), at a forum a few days ago, supported the sub judice argument citing various predicaments of a sitting judge, which could affect their decisions.

It is ridiculous to think any of our judges would be that easily swayed because if I were the AG, my first retort would be that I served the bench for over 10 years, so I ought to have a very good idea.

Going by the AG’s argument on why sub judice is applicable, then my second major disappointment with Abdullah is the Judicial Appointments Commission, which fell quite short of the intent. It was not even seen to be independent. The last call still lies with the prime minister.

It is interesting to note that EAIC found three more law-breaking transgressors than that of police’s investigations. Did these three men figure at all in the police’s internal investigations? It is nonsensical to think EAIC had access to more resources or have superior investigative skills than the police did.

A quick survey on EAIC’s website shows they absolutely need to beef up on their investigations unit. The recent leadership has demonstrated that they have the gumption to act, so in time, perhaps, we won’t miss the IPCMC that much any more?

By right, all professional policemen should welcome EAIC’s intervention. After all, their task is help sieve out the rotten apples to improve the force’s image. The higher regard the uniform gets the less irksome the policeman’s duties become — through public cooperation.

A mockery corrected

The Federal Court in a unanimous decision upheld the 2010 High Court decision granting custody of Prasana Diksa to M. Indira Gandhi and orders the arrest of ex-husband K. Pathmanathan @ Muhammad Riduan Abdullah.

My gripe had been the IGP’s refusal to act on a lawful order issued by the High Court in 2014 to arrest Riduan and to secure the return of Prasana to Indira.

He claimed to be caught between two conflicting court decisions. He is an experienced officer and assuredly made a conscious decision to take sides — by not following the civil court order, he took sides. It was wrong. Not all lawful orders can meet our conscience tests every time, but the uniform does not permit any straying, particularly one that is worn by the IGP.

Undeniably, the two institutions that can do the most to uphold or to damage the “rule of law” are the judiciary and the police.

That was why the JAC and the IPCMC were mooted soon after Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad stepped down. But alas, real courage in political leadership was wanting.

Postscript

I still remember clearly Musa’s threat to withdraw all roadblock operations if the public continued to question some of the roughshod methods used. A motorcyclist was badly injured after being knocked down for trying to avoid the roadblock. He was furious that the public did not seem to empathise with the type of danger “his” men were exposed to habitually when they were on duty.

The top law enforcer thought he was the law unto himself. He also forgot that the post was not part of a family heirloom and that it was an appointed position.

All law enforcement personnel, especially the police, fall into this “rut” after some time; the inescapable stress and built-up self-importance impair their rationality. Even cruel acts could be justified with no compunction.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.

Resource : Malay Mail Online