Suhakam wants written statements from cops in 7 days

The Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) which is holding a public inquiry into the arrest of five lawyers of the Kuala Lumpur Legal Aid Centre earlier this year today directed police officers to provide written statements within seven days.

The inquiry chaired by Muhammad Shafee Abdullah and assisted by commissioners Dr Michael Yeoh and Dr Denison Jayasooria unanimously made the decision after hearing submissions by lawyer M Puravalen, who represented the five lawyers, and police counsel Supt R Munusamy.

Muhammad Shafee ( left ) said the statements would be taken by Suhakam officers before Sept 19 and would all be recorded.

"We therefore direct the relevant named police officers who have been subpoenaed to appear before us to provide written statements of their interview with Suhakam officers.

"As this inquiry is urgently being conducted we further direct that these statements must be recorded and authenticated before Sept 19," he said.

Muhammad Shafee said the Suhakam Act, being a human rights statute stands close to legislation such as the constitution and should be treated ‘sui generis’ attracting interpretations of its provisions in a liberal, fair and large fashion.

"Section 14 (1) (a) grants Suhakam with the power to recording statements of witnesses, whether they are civilians or police officers," he said.

In a previous hearing, the inquiry was told that the police officers involved refused to give written statements and that last week all parties had made submissions.

Police in their submission had questioned the powers of Suhakam to direct them while counsel for the five lawyers said the commission had the power to take statements, written or oral and examine all witnesses.

However, Muhammad Shafee said: "These witnesses are obliged to provide written and authenticated statements if and when requested by Suhakam. In this context, we would suggest that in future, proper notices are issued to witnesses for purposes of interview and recording of statements.

“The notice must quote the empowering provisions of Section 14 (1) (a) and the consequent sanctions under Chapter IX and X of the Penal Code must equally be quoted to bring to notice the witnesses of the peril of non-compliance," he said.

‘An inquiry, not an adversarial hearing’

Muhammad Shafee said that though the lawyers’ counsel had raised in its submissions that if the inquiry were to proceed without the police witness statements, it would be unfair to his clients, the panel of inquiry does not deem it so.

Muhammad Shafee also said Puravelan's concern that if the inquiry were to proceed without police witness statements having been recorded earlier by Suhakam, his clients would suffer prejudice almost irreparable in nature.

"This is an inquiry, not an adversarial hearing. The control of the proceedings does not lie with any particular party or parties. The panel would control the proceedings and would make the necessary directions in order to defeat any prejudice, real or apparent.

"In all previous inquiries by Suhakam, except for one or two, police witness have not come forward to provide recorded statements. In spite of that, every single public inquiry Suhakam has conducted did not show any signs of prejudice having taken place to any particular party or parties.

"But we do recognise the observation made in certain cases that with recorded statements before us we could test the veracity of particular witnesses in a better light as we would have the advantage of comparing the witness testimonies to their recorded statements.

"We have in our arsenal various techniques that we could employ to set off this apparent unfairness that may be prejudicial," he said.

Before the proceedings ended Muhammad Shafee asked Munusamy about the panel of inquiry's direction and Munusamy said he would refer the matter to higher authorities as to follow or make an appeal.

The inquiry will continue on Oct 14.

- Bernama