MAY 14 — Lawyers representing footballer Mohamad Faisal Abdul Halim have reportedly applied to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) to reopen the investigation into the acid attack case involving the Selangor FC winger.
Lawyer Nik Zarith Nik Moustpha, representing Faisal, said they had submitted a letter to the AGC regarding the matter on April 15 but have yet to receive any feedback.
Nik Zarith said they received a letter from the AGC on Feb 18, which stated that the case had been classified as “No Further Action” (NFA) as the police could not find any clues that could link any individual as a suspect to the case and that all efforts carried out for that purpose had been unsuccessful.
There have been voices saying that the NFA call is just not right and that the AGC should declassify the NFA.
I wonder if we know about the Justice Audit (JA) and read the report Justice Audit Malaysia (JAM).
The JA is an actionable roadmap for delivering justice and strengthening the rule of law by unlocking the potential of a country’s own data. It undertakes an in-depth examination of how a national justice system is functioning and identifies key areas for targeted intervention and improvement.
The examination is objective and apolitical. It is diagnostic in nature and does not score or rank countries or institutions.
Since 2011, JAs have been conducted in Asia and Africa. According to JAM, in December 2011, the government of Malaysia invited the International Centre for Law and Legal Studies (I-CeLLS) and the Governance and Justice Group (GJG) to jointly conduct a JA of the criminal justice system in Malaysia.
Lawyers representing footballer Mohamad Faisal Abdul Halim have reportedly applied to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) to reopen the investigation. — Bernama pic
On Prosecutions & Trials, the JAM reported as follows:
“The starting point for setting in motion a prosecution is when an Investigation Paper (IP) is opened. An IP must be opened ‘once a [First Information] report is classified as a crime’. The figures are uncertain since an IP may be counted more than once as the file may pass between the police Investigating Officer (IO) and prosecutor several times (as the prosecutor may advise the IO to conduct further enquiries).
“The analysis provided by the Prime Minister’s Performance Management and Delivery Unit (PEMANDU) indicates that ‘of the 2.5 million crimes reported in 2009, less than 10% resulted in the charging of a suspect and only 5.6% reached a verdict.’
“The disparity in total reported crime and total number of IPs registered may be due to a number of factors – such as:
a) the initial report does not disclose a criminal offence (NOD); or discloses a civil or quasi-civil action and referred to the Magistrate (RTM);
b) initial investigations are inconclusive and result in a finding of No Further Action (NFA);
c) the report is referred to other agencies for action (ROA), such as the immigration department.”
So NFAs have long contributed to the disparity in total reported crimes and total number of IPs registered or opened.
The disparity between the IPs registered or opened and IPs resulting in prosecution (about 20 per cent) was further explained as follows:
“a) the policy of the prosecution department is not to prosecute unless there is a 80% chance of securing a conviction on the face of the IP;
b) the accused has not been arrested;
c) the matter is still under investigation.”
JAM observed that the “closer integration of ‘investigation and prosecution …to enhance process effectiveness’ as practiced in other countries (where prosecutors sit in the police station to offer ready advice to police officers) appears not to be in place. The ‘control and direction’ of the prosecution is taken out of the DPP’s hands and efforts to enquire after an IP that appears to be dragging or to question the provenance of an IP several years after the offence was committed are seen by police to be impertinent.”
JAM further observed:
“There were indications that some DPPs saw their role to secure convictions, rather than to act in the public interest to administer justice impartially. This latter view is clearly stated in the draft Code of Conduct for Prosecutors.”
It’s been more than 10 years since the report of JAM, during which the government has changed hands no less than four times.
The voice in me says that it is not just about declassifying the NFA and reopening the investigation into the acid attack. The voice says that there should be reform to the criminal justice system in the country.
The biggest room is the room for reform.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
