I refer to the Malaysiakini report Suhakam declares lawyers' arrest unlawful, cops rapped .

Your above report on the decision of the Malaysian Human Rights Commission’s panel of inquiry into the arrest and detention of the five lawyers from the Kuala Lumpur Legal Aid Centre at the Brickfields police station on May 7 mentions that ‘the police had acted in a way that was mala fide ’ but does not elaborate. Allow me to provide an expanded account for the benefit of your readers, and then to make some observations.

The panel actually came to certain conclusions with respect to the testimony of the two senior police officers in question. The panel said:

- ‘DSP Jude Pereira and OCPD Wan Bari were totally hazy with their testimony pertaining to their interaction with the five lawyers or for that matter with other lawyers including the chairperson of the Bar who arrived subsequent to the arrest of the five lawyers. We find the evidence of DSP Jude Pereira totally unsatisfactory. DSP Jude Pereira either consciously was not telling the truth or suffered from a serious bout of loss of memory. DSP Jude Pereira initially denied interacting with any lawyers until he was confronted with direct evidence and documentary evidence in the form of the video footage’;

- ‘We are baffled with [OCPD ACP Wan Abdul Bari’s] claim that he has never met the chairperson of the Bar or Mr Puravalen or any other senior lawyers representing the Bar who were allowed into the compound of the police station after the arrest of the five lawyers. Ragunath Kesavan in no uncertain terms testified that he pleaded to meet up with the arrestees but he was unceremoniously told off and instructed to get out of the police station by the OCPD. [His exact words were: ‘Get out of my balai .’] OCPD Wan Bari was only able to say that he cannot remember such incidents happening implying that such incidents never happen’;

- ‘the police in their submission has attempted to argue that since all these arrestees (the 14 and five lawyers) were allowed to keep their handphones to communicate, there was actually no denial of communication and consultation with the counsel of their choice. We find this argument not appealing at all because it totally demolishes all the reasons provided by DSP Jude in all the five s.28A [of the Criminal Procedure Code] forms for refusal of access to counsel…This is in fact a powerful piece of evidence to show mala fide and improper motives on the part of the police to deny access to counsel’;

- ‘We find the other reasoning provided in the Form 28A in relation to safety of other persons to be completely without merit whatsoever and totally illogical. DSP Jude did not tell us whose safety he was worried about. As we had earlier pointed out that provision is totally inept to this mundane situation’;

- ‘We are even prepared to accept that the 14 may have been difficult in allowing the processing of their particulars to be undertaken but this is a far cry from claims that they were unruly to the extent that their behaviour brought about a situation of a possible siege of Brickfields police station.

There was even a claim that others from outside could pose danger when acting in concert with the 14 to cause a public order problem. Apparently, according to DSP Jude, the armory too could have been put in danger. We find no evidence of this magnitude. The police in Brickfields were well in control of the situation’;

- ‘The police having exaggerated the situation of the 14 arrestees then made the claim that the drama relating to the 14 was a continuous activity or transaction to the event leading to the arrest of the five LAC lawyers. We find this claim absurd….’

The panel thus highlighted serious misgivings as to the credibility and integrity of ACP Wan Abdul Bari and DSP Jude Pereira. As can be seen, the panel made strong conclusions as to the veracity of their testimony.

The conduct and testimony of the two senior police officers constitute grave violations of the Polis Di Raja Malaysia’s (PDRM) disciplinary regulations as set out in the Police Regulations, 1952 [L.N. 636/1952]. In particular, a police officer who:

• without reasonable cause makes any unlawful or unnecessary arrest (Regulation 23);

This is being guilty of a disciplinary offence. These violations must not be allowed to go unpunished.

Regrettably, the panel did not see fit to make any recommendations that disciplinary proceedings be commenced against these two senior police officers. When asked why, the chairperson said that the panel was aware that a civil suit might be filed against PDRM. With respect, whether or not there is to be a civil suit should not concern the panel. The panel’s terms of reference included making recommendations as to corrective action. In not recommending disciplinary proceedings, the panel fell short of its terms of reference.

In any event, this is not the first time that Suhakam has dealt with the issue of the abuse of Section 28A of the CPC. In its 2008 annual report, Suhakam had already made the recommendation ‘that the police should ensure strict adherence to the statutory right of persons arrested to consult a lawyer in accordance with Section 28A of the (CPC). The said section requires the police to inform a person of the reason for his arrest and to inform him of his right to contact his lawyer and family.’

The events of May 7, 2009 raise questions whether, more than one year after the release of Suhakam’s 2008 annual report, the recommendations of Suhakam have actually been considered and implemented both by the government and PDRM. The actions of the two senior police officers in question clearly show that the PDRM are still lacking in adequate knowledge and training of the proper application of Section 28A of the CPC

In addition, the breach of the constitutional rights of another by someone in a position of authority such as a police officer, and the blatant abuse of the law, both of which have occurred here, are very much as dangerous in how it affects our country as crime and corruption. Such practices must be rigorously and systematically rooted out.

It is high time that the government and PDRM institute better human rights training for members of the police force. The government and PDRM must now initiate disciplinary proceedings against these two senior police officers in question, and to make public the findings and decision of the disciplinary proceedings.

Anything less would mean that both the government and PDRM are neither sincere nor serious about upholding law and order and respect for the constitutional rights of citizens, about the issue of discipline in the police force, or of putting an end to ‘little Napoleons’ and the culture of impunity surrounding law enforcement agencies (but particularly the PDRM) in our country.

The writer acted as counsel for the Malaysian Bar in the hearing by the above Suhakam panel of inquiry.