The chairman of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) has expressed surprise that the Head of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) in Perak has not considered charging Taiping Prison officers with rioting.
Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamudin Md Yunus, who is chairing a public inquiry into alleged human rights violations at Taiping Prison in January, asked Perak CID head SAC Luqman Abdul Rahman this question after the latter said it was difficult to pinpoint and identify “who did what to whom” on Jan 17.
It has been alleged that 60 prison officers beat and kicked over 100 inmates, who had refused to move from Hall B, where they were being processed after their transfer from the Batu Gajah Correctional Facility on Jan 16, to Block E.
One inmate, Gan Chin Eng, 62, died, while several others suffered injuries.
Mohd Hishamudin: The incident happened on Jan 17. It is now September and there’s still no end in sight. Someone died, the family seeks justice, and inmates suffered brutality at the hands of wardens. The role of prison wardens is to protect the inmates, but here the opposite happened. When can the victims expect closure so that those responsible will be charged?
Luqman: There is difficulty in identifying who did what and to whom. The state’s deputy public prosecutor (DPP) is also wondering when we can finish the investigation.
Mohd Hishamudin: Why didn’t you consider using Section 146 (of the Penal Code), which deals with rioting? If there is a common intention, it means we don’t have to pinpoint anyone. It will overcome the identification issue.
Luqman: We are now waiting for the DPP to decide.
Mohd Hishamudin: It is not so difficult. During the course of this inquiry, we have had inmates identify the officers involved. Even the prison officers could identify some of their colleagues involved in the brutality. Perhaps the police can do the same, consider requesting the officers be charged under Section 146, which will help overcome the ‘who did what’ issue.
Luqman: We will consider this.
Earlier, Luqman, 59, said the inhumane conditions in Taiping Prison could have been a contributing factor to what happened on Jan 17. He said he didn’t blame the inmates for not wanting to move to Block E.
Luqman, who visited Taiping Prison on Jan 18, a day after the incident, said: “If I had a goat, I wouldn’t want it to live there. The deplorable living conditions, coupled with the bucket system, are inhumane.
“I pity the inmates and also the prison officers. How can they live in such conditions?”
Asked by Suhakam’s assisting inquiry officer Abdul Rahman Abdullah, on his thoughts about several police reports made by Taiping Prison officers who alleged the inmates acted aggressively and attacked them, Luqman said: “Based on the closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage, I believe the reports are false, and were an attempt to shift the blame to the inmates.”
Abdul Rahman: Will action be taken against the officers for making a false police report?
Luqman: That will be decided later. We may recommend it to the DPP.
Mohd Hishamudin: You mean, no action has been taken against the officers who made the report?
Luqman: Not yet.
Mohd Hishamudin: But isn’t this an offence under the Penal Code?
Luqman: Yes.
Mohd Hishamudin: Now that you’ve seen the (police) reports, will you investigate (the prison officers)?
Luqman: Yes.
Mohd Hishamudin: Will action be taken as soon as possible?
Luqman: Yes.
Abdul Rahman: You viewed the CCTV footage of Jan 17 again today, did any inmate act aggressively or attack wardens?
Luqman: No.
Abdul Rahman: So, were their (prison officers’) actions in defence?
Luqman: No.
Luqman denied that the transfer of Investigating Officer ASP Siti Nor Rasyidah M. Nadzri from Taiping to Ipoh was the cause of the delay in solving the case. Siti Nor Rasyidah was transferred on May 5.
Asked by counsel Yoges M. Verasuntharam, who is representing some 99 families of inmates if it was normal for police not to arrest anyone in a murder investigation, Luqman said yes, “but only if the suspects cooperate fully”.
Yoges: Isn’t it normal to arrest someone?
Luqman: If we can pinpoint a suspect, yes. If we had identified someone on the first day, we would have. However, the investigation is ongoing, and we are awaiting directions from the DPP.
Yoges: Isn’t it the duty of the police to pinpoint or identify the suspect?
Luqman: Under normal circumstances, yes.
Meanwhile, Inspector Muhamad Mustakhim Abdul Rahim, who was recalled to testify today said he was surprised that Suhakam had been handed incomplete documents relating to the urine test conducted on the inmates on Jan 19 and 20. Muhamad Mustakhim had previously testified on July 23.
He, however, admitted that several standard operating procedures were not followed during the tests:
• There was no B sample as the inmates only produced enough urine to fill one bottle
• The test kits were only sent to the hospitals more than 24 hours after they were taken
Muhamad Mustakhim also revealed that he had only received the pathology tests of 26 inmates from Hospital Kuala Lumpur, with 24 of them testing positive for methamphetamine.
He said the reason for the delay was that Hospital Kuala Lumpur was the only hospital with the equipment to test for methamphetamine in Peninsular Malaysia.
The inquiry at Suhakam’s headquarters continues on Sept 12.
