Abdul Malek, was arrested under the ISA on the night of Sept 25, 1998, after addressing a demonstration earlier that day in Masjid Negara following the sacking and arrest of Anwar Ibrahim, who was then deputy prime minister. He was detained under the preventive security law for 57 days, and was later released without being charged.Abdul Malek filed his suit civil suit in March 1999, naming special branch officer Borhan Daud, the then police chief Abdul Rahim Noor and the government as respondents.
During the High Court trial, the plaintiff testified he was stripped naked in an air-conditioned room, blindfolded during interrogation, and physically assaulted up to 60 times, beaten until he was unconscious, forced to drink urine and subjected to sexual abuse.
The High Court judge was convinced that it took place after major contradictions were found in the defendants' witnesses compared to Abdul Malek's “consistent statements”.
He also opined that the public prosecutor's refusal to prosecute Abdul Malek for making false claims against Rahim implied that there was some truth in his claims.
The High court also ruled that it was unconstitutional for Abdul Malek to be denied access to his lawyer.
SADLY!!!!
25 March 2010
This is another dark day for our Malaysian Judiciary Institution.
The Court of Appeal had overturned a rare RM2.5 million award to former ISA detainee Abdul Malek Hussein following an appeal from the government.
Justice Md Raus Shariff along with Federal Court judge - Sulong Matjeraie and Ahmad Maarop reversed the High Court decision and ruled that Abdul Malek's detention was lawful and also rejected his allegations of torture while in custody.
Following the decision, Abdul Malek is not entitled to get any monetary award but was instead ordered by the appellate court to pay RM50,000 in costs.
Justice Md Raus in his 34-page judgment said
1. ...the arresting officer need not inform Abdul Malek the grounds of the arrest in detail.
2. ...helding Abdul Malek's right to a counsel, while under detention, as alleged a violation under Article 5(3) of the Federal Constitution, does not make the arrest and detention mala fide.
3. ...(while accepting Abdul Malek was assaulted...)...Abdul Malek did not make the police report on the alleged torture immediately after his release but three and a half months after that."
"The delay raises doubt as to the credibility of the alleged assault. The respondent (Abdul Malek) had explained the delay but in our view, his explanation was not credible and should have been rejected by the High Court judge," he said.
"The delay raises doubt as to the credibility of the alleged assault. The respondent (Abdul Malek) had explained the delay but in our view, his explanation was not credible and should have been rejected by the High Court judge," he said.
SAD!
SAD!
SAD!!
No comments:
Post a Comment