The Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) today held its first ever public hearing since its establishment in 2011.

 

The commission's hearing was to hear testimonies of three witnesses to aid  investigation into the death-in-custody case of N Dhamendran, who died in a police lock-up at the Kuala Lumpur police headquarters on May 21, 2013.

 

It is understood that some 70 witnesses are expected to be called throughout the hearing  though the final number has yet to be finalised.

 

Four police personnel were charged for Dhamendran’s death but all four were acquitted by the courts late last year.

 

EAIC commissioner Vinayak Prabhakar Pradhan, who presided over today’s hearing, stressed that the hearing was not a criminal investigation.

 

“There are a number of people involved in this unfortunate incident who have been charged in court and there is no suggestion that we are going to charge them.

 

“This is, however, an inquiry for us to ascertain the facts to help us find out what happened, whether there were any shortcomings and then perform our functions under the EAIC Act.

 

“I wish to make that clear as we start,” he said at the beginning of the proceedings this morning.

 

Also presiding over today’s hearing was EAIC commissioner Leong May Chan.

Watching briefs

 In addition, two representatives from the police were holding a watching brief, while former EAIC commissioner Sharifah Hapsah Syed Hasan and former deputy inspector general of police Mohd Jamil Johari acted as consultants to pose questions to witnesses.

 

Early in the proceedings, Vinayak also read out the EAIC public hearing’s terms of reference in its investigation on Dhamendran’s death.

 

Among others, the EAIC is to determine whether there is misconduct in the police’s handling of Dhamendran’s custody, and if so, determine how it happened, rules and procedures in place that had led to the misconduct, and the individuals responsible.

 

It would then prepare and distribute a report of its findings, which would make recommendations to improve regulations, methods, standard operating procedures, or mechanisms, with the aim of avoiding a repeat of the incident.

 

Vinayak added that matters that have already been dealt with in court can also be brought up in the hearing, as long as it falls within the terms of reference.

 

Meanwhile, lawyer Eric Paulsen ( photo ) who is holding a watching brief at the hearing on behalf of Dhamendran’s family said he was surprised by EAIC’s move to call for the public hearing “out of the blue”.

 

He told Malaysiakini after today’s hearing that it is still too early to pass judgement on the EAIC public hearing, but nevertheless lauded it as a good first step.

 

The first session of the hearing starts from today until July 31, while another session runs from Aug 17 to Aug 21.

 

The first session is taking place at the Human Rights Commission’s (Suhakam) premises in Kuala Lumpur, in a small hall where Suhakam has held many of its own public hearings.

 

Also holding a watching brief at the hearing is a team of lawyers from the Bar Council, led by its Constitutional Law Committee co-chairperson Roger Chan.

 

Chan ( photo ) took issue with several ‘housekeeping issues’ at the hearing, including the unavailability of documents presented at the hearing to the lawyers holding watching briefs, and the fact that the EAIC commissioners presiding over the hearings would not be fixed but instead can be changed from day-to-day.

 

Vinayak defended the EAIC decision not to have a fixed panel to hear the testimonies saying that it makes scheduling easier for the commissioners, and ensures that the hearings are not dragged over a protracted period of time.

 

In addition, he said commissioners who did not attend a hearing would be provided videos and written transcripts of the hearing.

 

As for the documents, Vinayak told Chan that the EAIC would not be distributing it in advance as it does not know what would be tabled, but would instead make copies available to them as they are tabled.

 

When Paulsen later asked to have the documents in advance to give the lawyers holding watching briefs time to study them, Vinayak said the request would be considered.

Three witnesses

 

The three witnesses testifying at today’s hearing are police photographer Mohd Khairil Anuar Mansor, Dhamendran’s widow Marry Mariay Susay, and Dhamendran’s father Narayanasamy Venugopal.

 

Future hearings are slated to hear testimonies from pathologists, coroners, magistrates, and police officers involved in Dhamendran’s case.

 

During today’s hearing, there was an emotional moment when the proceeding officer Ahmad Razif Mohd Sidek asked Marry about Dhamendran’s last words to her when she last saw her at the police lockup on May 19, 2013.

 

The widow started sobbing and broke into tears when she attempted to answer the question.

 

“He asked me to take good care of the son […] He said he would surely go home, and asked me to go home without feeling sad.

 

“He said he loves me,” she said through a translator, after taking a few minutes to compose herself.

 

She described Dhamendran’s condition at the time as being healthy and unhurt, although he was shaven and appeared to be wary instead of his usual jovial character.

 

52 injury marks

According to Dhamendran’s autopsy report , he had 52 injury marks from head to toe with no sign of defensive wounds, including staples stuck to both his ears.

 

“It was quite clear that during his beating he was handcuffed, and in a lower position, possibly kneeling or something,” said Kuala Lumpur Hospital’s pathologist Dr Siew Sheue Feng who prepared the report.

 

The report also suggested that a stapler had been used as an instrument of torture against Dhamendran.

 

Siew is expected to testify to the EAIC by the end of the week.

 

Back in June 2013, the EAIC had formed a seven-member task force to probe Dhamendran’s death-in-custody, as well as that of another victim R Jamesh Ramesh.

 However this was quickly met with criticism when it turned out that one of the task force’s members, Salehudin Saidin, was a lawyer whose firm is representing a police personnel charged for Dhamendran’s murder. He was then promptly dropped from the task force.

 

Subsequently, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) also called for another task force member to be withdrawn , as he was an MACC staff on loan to the EAIC.

“The MACC does not want a MACC officer to be linked to any controversy, regardless of whether it involves MACC or EAIC,” it said.

 

The EAIC has also been battling perception since its inception, that it is a watered-down version of the proposed Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) after the police opposed the IPCMC’s formation.

 

The IPCMC was mooted by a Royal Commission of Inquiry in 2004, and a key difference between it and the EAIC is that the former has enforcement powers .

 

The EAIC and the government had previously rebutted such perceptions by arguing that the EAIC is more powerful than the IPCMC because its powers are not limited to the police, but also 20 other enforcement agencies including the National Anti-Drugs Agency, Customs Department, and enforcement divisions of various ministries.