Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this
mk-logo
From Our Readers

The cabinet's decision to hold an inquest of cause of Teoh Beng Hock's mysterious death and Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) to determine if there was any human rights violation during his interrogation can be viewed by detractors as a 'half way' measure or supporters as a 'win win' proposal to satisfy both opposing sides of security services desirous to be exonerated and opposition/NGOs desirous to secure accountability.

The Securities Services also favour inquest because unlike an adversarial trial where two sides contend each other with judge determining probabilities of what happened, a magistrate in an inquest cannot determine on probabilities but only on certainty of proved facts.

Hence it is even more difficult to pinpoint guilt when proved facts are required instead of a judgment based on probabilities of beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal trial! Historically I know of no inquest that has been successful in proving torture/foul.

Two cases of Rumie Azzan Mahlie and Loh Kah Kheng both mysteriously falling to death parallel to Teoh’s circumstances from high floors of STA (Sarawak Timber Association) Building (Kuching) had returned ‘open verdicts’ (i.e. inconclusive verdicts of who actually caused deaths).

In spite of the unsatisfactory aspects of an inquest, it is difficult to repudiate this option of inquest because it is probably a requirement of law [sections 337 read with 334 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC)] that when anybody dies in custody of police, psychiatric ward or hospital, and no one has yet been charged by public prosecutor, an inquest is appropriate mechanism.

RCI, though is perceived more impartial may not have the power, infrastructure and forensic means to investigate homicide as effectively as police. One would need to cordon off the whole 14th floor of MACC building, make sure evidence is not tampered.

One such evidence (forensic) is footprints on the 14th floor near the window. Does evidence show the deceased’s foot prints consistent with the deceased walking on his own to jump off or multiple foot prints of two or three others consistent with them going to the window and throwing him off? Who has the power to cordon off the whole 14th floor and the forensic equipment to examine telltale signs of footprints whether they match the deceased’s shoes/soles or others’ boots? Will RCI have that power/equipment to do better than (say) the police? Not likely.

Yet inquests have always been protracted and shown to yield little results. However in spite of deficiencies in the inquest mechanism, here it is an inquest supposedly and unprecedentedly accompanied by a RCI to determine if there was any human rights violation during Teoh’s interrogation. The RCI makes a helpful difference (if it is held before or concurrent with inquest) because if human rights violation of the victim may be established, it cannot be separated from inference of who might have caused his death that would warrant a resumption of specific and more thorough police investigation leading to prosecution (assuming the powers-that-be agree to take the RCI’s recommendations).

One may argue, what’s the point of all the hassle of RCI that is intended to connect human right violations and death and culminate in police investigation – when police investigation is precisely that which is not trusted by the public, for if it were otherwise acceptable there’s really no need to have RCI in the first instance?

Well the difference is that an independent RCI’s findings of fault or foul play will create a climate of public opinion for authorities to investigate the case more thoroughly than it otherwise will be. If police investigations are not initiated as recommended by RCI or if initiated are otherwise carried out in desultory or perfunctory manner after prior RCI’s findings of fault/guilt, the police institution itself and not just MACC will be put on second round on the dock of public judgment with all its attendant political repercussions in the next GE.

Here the government is juggling between two imperatives and conflicting interests: on one hand, to satisfy security forces and imperatives of law based on CPC by having an inquest albeit deficient and on the other hand, to try ameliorate public outrage and satisfy opposition, NGOs’ and populist demands by giving in to RCI to investigate human rights violation and torture.

In the premises of above, the cabinet’s decision of an inquest balanced against a RCI is (realistically though not ideally) the best available deal on the table.

How well the truth may be ferretted out will depend on the exact terms of reference of RCI and the integrity of commissioners appointed to the RCI and competence of counsels and cross examiners representing family members and stakeholders.

ADS