Press Statement by Teoh Beng Hock Trust for Democracy on 11 August 2019 in Petaling Jaya
The IGP must investigate and charge 10 MACC officers for murder / culpable homicide, criminal conspiracy, abetment in cover up, fabrication and destruction of evidence.
Since exposure of the new police investigation on the death of Teoh Beng Hock (TBH) under section 342 (wrongful confinement) of penal code, we are dissatisfied that the government agencies have been pushing the ball to each other without accountability.
The Home Minister Muhyiddin Yassin said the Attorney-General (AG) would respond to the issue. However, few weeks ago, the AG Tommy Thomas told Teoh Lee Lan, the sister of the late TBH, that it is the responsibility of the police to probe the case and determine the investigation direction.
Similarly, the MACC Chief Latheefa Koya had refused to initiate internal disciplinary action against her officers and said it was the duty of the police to probe her officers who involved in causing the death of TBH in 2009.
Therefore, Teoh Beng Hock Trust for Democracy (TBHTD) lodged a police report today at IPD Petaling Jaya with the court of appeal judgements which stated the criminal responsibility of MACC officers, we want the IGP to conduct a new investigation under section 302 (murder) or 304 (culpable homicide) immediately.
In 2009, the inquest coroner had said that :
“I find that there exist sufficient evidence to confirm this injury as a pre-fall injury.”
Base on the evidence of pre-fall injury discovered in the inquest, the court of appeal judge Mah Weng Kwai said that :
“From the evidence of the three pathologists it can be concluded, on a balance of probabilities, that some force/trauma must have been applied to the neck of Teoh Beng Hock, such as a strangle hold, which could cause an interruption to the supply of oxygen to the brain. A result of the deprivation of oxygen to the brain could have caused Teoh Beng Hock to lose some consciousness and thereby become disorientated or to lose consciousness completely”
He ruled out the theory of suicide as TBH’s body injuries were inconsistent with typical suicide case, there was no fracture of wrist and no ring fracture on skull. With these the three court of appeal judges concluded that :
“Death of Teoh Beng Hock was caused by multiple injuries from a fall from the 14th Floor of Plaza Masalam as a result of, or which was accelerated by, an unlawful act or acts of persons unknown, inclusive of MACC officers who were involved in the arrest and investigation of the deceased”
In addition, the court of appeal judge Hamid Sultan Abu Backer ruled that :
“Injury has been identified is sufficient to attract some level of criminal liability against ‘MACC’ officers who were involved and a proper police investigation would have been warranted under the CPC taking into consideration that ‘MACC’ officers are not immune to such investigation under the law or Federal Constitution.”
“As the deceased was in the custody of the ‘MACC’ officers followed by the evidence of injury in his neck, and the fact that he was subsequently found dead will prima facie attach culpability to the relevant officers of ‘MACC’. It will significantly attract the relevant provision of the CPC to initiate investigation and if justifiable prefer a charge according to law even though the prosecution case may be in reliance of circumstantial evidence only.”
The judge had clearly stated that such crime violated a citizen’s constitutional rights and MACC officers should be charged for murder or culpable homicide :
“‘MACC’ or the relevant officers being a responsible body simply cannot disclaim liability when its officers had taken the deceased to custody and kept the witness throughout engaging in oppressive conduct which resulted in his death.
In ordinary circumstances if the oppressors had been lay persons on the facts of the case the oppressors would have been charged by the police and/or Attorney General’s Chambers for murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder to be read with section 34 of the Penal Code relating to common intention.
That was not done in this case which has resulted in a public outcry and in my view such failure breached the rule of law and several provisions of the Federal Constitution, more so articles 5(1) and 8(1) which reads as follows:
5. (1) No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.
8. (1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.”
Hence, with the evidence presented in the inquest and the verdict of court of appeal judge Hamid Sultan, it is apparent that MACC officers were responsible for serious crimes violating Malaysian laws.
As the important part of criminal justice system which given the duty of defending rule of law, the Royal Malaysian Police must immediately probe MACC officers involved in TBH case beyond the section 342 as follows :
(1) To investigate the following MACC officers under section 302 or section 304 of the penal code for murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder for the death of TBH:
(2) To investigate the following MACC officers under section 120A of the penal code for criminal conspiracy in the cover up of the death of TBH :
(3) To investigate the following MACC officers under section 107, 108, 511 of the penal code for abetment and attempting to abet (i) in the death of TBH, (ii) in the cover up of the death of TBH :
(4) To investigate the following MACC officers under section 191 and 192 of the penal code for giving false evidence and fabricating evidence with respect to the death of TBH :
(5) To investigate the following MACC officers under section 201 to 204, 218 and 464 of the penal code for destruction of, tampering with, causing the disappearance of evidence, and framing incorrect records or writing with intent to save a person from punishment with respect to the death of TBH :
Ng Yap Hwa
Spokesperson
Teoh Beng Hock Trust for Democracy
————————————————————————————————–
Page 20, verdict Inkues Terhadap Kematian Teoh Beng Hock, dalam mahkamah majistret di Shah Alam, Permohonan Jenayah Inkues No : 88-10-2009.
Teoh Meng Kee vs Public prosecutor, court of appeal verdict by Hamid Sultan bin Abu Backer, B-09-283-12/2011, Page 22
Teoh Meng Kee vs Public prosecutor, court of appeal verdict by Hamid Sultan bin Abu Backer, B-09-283-12/2011, Page 23
Teoh Meng Kee vs Public prosecutor, court of appeal verdict by Hamid Sultan bin Abu Backer, B-09-283-12/2011, Page 26
Photo Source : Malaysiakini