KUALA LUMPUR: A police lawyer has questioned the power of Suhakam under the law to record statements from police witnesses.
Royal Malaysian Police counsel Supt R. Munusamy told a Suhakam public inquiry into the arrest of five lawyers at the Brickfields station that the power to compel such statements under the Suhakam Act was “vague, ambiguous and uncertain.”
He said the inquiry was the first time that police witnesses had been asked to record their statements before or during such a hearing.
Royal Malaysian Police counsel Supt R. Munusamy told a Suhakam public inquiry into the arrest of five lawyers at the Brickfields station that the power to compel such statements under the Suhakam Act was “vague, ambiguous and uncertain.”
He said the inquiry was the first time that police witnesses had been asked to record their statements before or during such a hearing.
Citing Subramaniam Vythilingam vs Suhakam and ORS (others), Munusamy said the investigation by Suhakam officers was referred to as an “interview”, which meant there was no requirement for authentication as this was done on a voluntary basis.
“When police witnesses in this public hearing stated that they would give their evidence to the commissioners in the inquiry or refuse to authenticate their interview, their refusals were within their rights and had not infringed any law or regulation,” he argued.
Munusamy said the commissioners should not consider these refusals as a challenge to Suhakam’s powers but as a guide to future inquiries.
However, the lawyers’ counsel M. Puravelan said the commission had the power to “procure and receive all such evidence” and examine all witnesses if it thought it was necessary or desirable for an inquiry.
His colleague Andrew Khoo then submitted that, under sub-section 16(2) of the Act, the commission might appoint “officers and servants” to assist it in the discharge of its functions.
“The commission may delegate to any officer any of its powers, and the officer then may exercise those powers subject to the commission’s direction,” he said, adding that the police witnesses could not refuse questions from Suhakam officers.
On Saturday, the inquiry was told that the witnesses had refused to have their statements taken before testifying despite being ordered by the commissioners to do so on Aug 14.
Commissioner Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah adjourned the inquiry to next Friday to decide whether the commission could direct witnesses to have their statements recorded.
Munusamy said the commissioners should not consider these refusals as a challenge to Suhakam’s powers but as a guide to future inquiries.
However, the lawyers’ counsel M. Puravelan said the commission had the power to “procure and receive all such evidence” and examine all witnesses if it thought it was necessary or desirable for an inquiry.
His colleague Andrew Khoo then submitted that, under sub-section 16(2) of the Act, the commission might appoint “officers and servants” to assist it in the discharge of its functions.
“The commission may delegate to any officer any of its powers, and the officer then may exercise those powers subject to the commission’s direction,” he said, adding that the police witnesses could not refuse questions from Suhakam officers.
On Saturday, the inquiry was told that the witnesses had refused to have their statements taken before testifying despite being ordered by the commissioners to do so on Aug 14.
Commissioner Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah adjourned the inquiry to next Friday to decide whether the commission could direct witnesses to have their statements recorded.
No comments:
Post a Comment