Former inspector-general of police Abdul Rahim Noor could not have assaulted ex-Internal Security Act (ISA) detainee Abdul Malek Hussin eight years ago, according to a senior police officer.

Selangor CID chief Hadi Ho Abdullah told the Kuala Lumpur High Court yesterday that Rahim was at the Kuala Lumpur police headquarters - where the alleged incident took place - but was attending a meeting at the time of the alleged assault.

"Rahim Noor ( left ) arrived at the police headquarters at around 12.15 in the morning of Sept 26, 1998 and left at around 2.58 after attending a meeting with the KL special branch chief and two other special branch officers from (federal police headquarters) Bukit Aman on the fifth floor," he said.

Hadi, who was then Kuala Lumpur deputy CID chief, was testifying at the hearing of a RM30 million civil suit filed by Abdul Malek against the government, the IGP and special branch officer Borhan Daud.

Previously, Abdul Malek testified that it was Rahim who had punched him because the blow had allegedly loosened his blindfold and allowed him to have a glimpse of the former police chief in the interrogation room.

Investigation questioned

In yesterday's proceedings, Hadi's seriousness in investigating the police report filed on March 13, 1999 by Abdul Malek regarding the incident came under scrutiny as well.

In the report, Abdul Malek claimed that he suffered physical and psychological trauma after his arrest in connection with the demonstrations that erupted after the sacking of ex-deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim.

Abdul Malek (right) claimed that he was forced to strip naked and drenched with water in an air-conditioned room, beaten more than 60 times to unconsciousness, sexually harassed and abused, forced to drink urine and threatened with an HIV/Aids virus injection.

However, Hadi said his investigations found that no such incidents had occurred. He also testified at length on his seriousness and the detailed steps he had taken towards making his conclusions, which were based on the statements of 30 police officers.

He said his findings were also based on a medical report made and photographs taken of Abdul Malek, four days and 27 days, respectively, after his arrest.

"I do not want to be accused of not being serious and detailed in carrying out my investigation," he told Justice Hishamudin Mohd Yunus.

Hadi also dismissed the suggestion by Abdul Malek's counsel R Sivarasa that his findings were based on information obtained from other sources.

"I did not base my opinions and findings only on what was informed to me by witnesses but also on such documents as photographs taken of the plaintiff and the (medical) report of Dr Vasantha Ponniah," said the senior police officer.

Medical examination

He also denied Sivarasa's suggestion that he had not performed his tasks properly when he failed to ask two special branch officers about a Dec 3, 1998 report on the internet regarding Abdul Malek's alleged assault.

When Hadi recorded the ex-detainee's statement, Abdul Malek told him that he was threatened by two special branch officers over the internet report.

Meanwhile, Sivarasa also questioned Hadi's rationale in sending Abdul Malek for a medical examination four months after the alleged incident.

Hadi had sent the former detainee to the Emergency Ward of the Kuala Lumpur Hospital on March 18, 1999 upon being told of the alleged abuses.

The police officer said he did this in order not to be accused of not seeking medical aid for Abdul Malek.

"I'm not a medical specialist to determine whether or not there would be marks of the injuries. Plus, the plaintiff had said himself that he had not gotten any medical treatment since his release from detention," he added.

When told that Abdul Malek had earlier been examined by one Dr Vasanth Ponniah, Hadi said he could not verify whether this had indeed taken place.

"At the time (Abdul Malek's statement was recorded), I didn't know and I wasn't sure that there was such a system of records or documentation kept by the special branch on ISA detainees.

"I needed to record the plaintiff's statement first in order to get a clear picture that would allow me to conduct further investigations," he added.

Hearing continues on July 27 - 28.