Police were well aware that some of those they were arresting were lawyers who were at the Brickfields police station to provide legal assistance to detainees, a Suhakam inquiry was told today.

suhakam inquiry 150809 puspa Puspawati Rosman, 28, one of the five lawyers who were detained by the police, testified that she was not part of the May 7 candlelight vigil which resulted in her arrest, and that she and four of her colleagues had clearly identified themselves as lawyers.

According to her, she had announced herself as a lawyer “a number of times” and the police had acknowledged it.

“In fact, I had even introduced myself to DSP Jude Pereira the night before and he knew I was a lawyer,” she said, referring to the arrests that took place a day earlier outside the same police station.

Puspawati claimed that Pereira ignored the lawyers’ request to see their clients on the grounds that those arrested had “waived their rights to receive legal assistance” by signing a form under Section 28A (8) of Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).

“But when we asked on what grounds the police had acted that way, he (Pereira) refused to answer and told me to ‘go read your law (book)’,” she said.

Later that night, Puspawati and the other lawyers tried to seek confirmation on whether their clients had indeed waived their rights.

suhakam inquiry 150809 police “We asked them (the police) about the forms which they claimed our clients had signed to prove that they didn’t want to see us, but we were not entertained. If they showed us the forms, we would have left the scene,” she said.

According to Puspawati, all the detainees had informed her by mobile phone that they did not sign any forms and that they insisted on legal assistance.

The three-day Suhakam inquiry which started yesterday is chaired by Muhammad Shafee Abdullah and two other commissioners, Michael Yeoh and Denison Jayasooria.

bar council lawyers protest at jalan duta court detained 5 lawyer at brickfields police station 080509 03 The five lawyers are Puspawati, Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, Murnie Hidayah Anuar, Ravinder Singh Dhalliwal and Syuhaini Safwan. They are represented at the inquiry by lawyer M Puravalen.

The five were arrested while attempting to provide legal aid to a group of individuals nabbed during a candlelight vigil in support of Bersih activist Wong Chin Huat, who was detained under the Sedition Act.

Not allowed to wear undergarments

Puspawati also said that she did not expect Brickfields police chief Wan Abdul Bari Wan Abdul Khalid - who was wearing a ‘Head Hunter’ T-shirt that night - would instruct his officers to arrest the lawyers.

“When he gave the warning to disperse, I had no idea that he was actually talking to us because he did not make any eye contact with us. I thought he was talking to the public,” she said.

Upon their arrests, they were all asked to sign a form admitting that they were involved in an illegal gathering, which they refused.

Subsequently, the female lawyers were sent to nearby Travers police station to spend the night.

“Before that, we were ordered to change our clothes to a lock-up uniform, where we were not even allowed to wear our undergarments,” lamented Puspawati, who further claimed that all the lawyers were also handcuffed before their statements were taken by the police.

Puspawati said the next day the five lawyers were brought back to Brickfield police station where they were released on police bail.

However, temperature at the inquiry rose a notch when police representative R Munusamy argued that the police need not give any reason to the lawyers if their clients were arrested under Section 28A (8) of CPC, which Puspawati agreed.

“But the lawyers and the clients still have the right to know what grounds the police needed to use such a provision,” she argued.

The purpose of the inquiry

The inquiry's term of reference is to determine whether the arrest and detention of five at the Brickfields police station contravened provisions of the federal constitution and other substantive and procedural criminal laws which guaranteed certain rights to an arrested person.

The panel will also look into whether there was justification or necessity to arrest the lawyers under Section 27 of the Police Act.

It will also determined if there was violations of human rights, and if so:

  • Which person or agency was responsible,
  • How did the violations occur,
  • What administrative directives and procedures or arrangements contributed to them; and
  • What measures should be recommended and taken to ensure that such violations do not recur.
The public inquiry, which is being held at the Suhakam inquiry room at Level 29, Menara Tun Razak in Kuala Lumpur, will resume tomorrow with four other lawyers to testify in the morning, to be followed by the police.