Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

“Well, let me give you a bit of background on Suhakam, so that you’ll know what it can do,” I told them.

Suhakam was set up via the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 (Act 597).

The inquiry into the arrest of the five lawyers is not the first time an inquiry has been held. Other instances were the Bandar Mahkota Cheras toll fiasco, the KLCC petrol price rise incident, and the death in custody of S. Hendry, to name a few.

Much has been said about the role and effectiveness of Suhakam. Among its functions are to hold inquiries to investigate complaints made to it; promote human rights education and awareness; make recommendations to the Government and assist in formulations of administrative directives and procedures; and, lastly, to advise the Government on subscription to international human rights treaties and protocols.

Suhakam may, on its own motion or on a complaint made to it by an aggrieved person or group of persons or a person acting on behalf of an aggrieved person or a group of persons, inquire into allegations of infringement of human rights of such person or group of persons.

In the case of the five lawyers, a complaint was made on their behalf by the Malaysian Bar on May 20.

The inquiry panel comprises three Suhakam commissioners and the inquiry is open to the public. The commission will at first scrutinise the various aspects of the complaint and collect evidence before deciding to call for an inquiry.

Suhakam will not inquire into any complaint on infringement of human rights which is the subject matter of any proceedings pending in, or has been finally determined by, any court.

During an inquiry before Suhakam, should the allegation become the subject matter of any proceedings in any court, the commission will immediately cease to continue with the inquiry.

As such, in the event the five arrested lawyers decide to commence civil proceedings in court, they can only do so after the inquiry has ended, as otherwise Suhakam will immediately bring it to an end.

Where an inquiry does not find any human rights infringement, the commission shall record that finding and immediately inform the complainant.

Should the commission during the inquiry uncover any infringement of human rights, the commission shall have the power to refer the matter to the relevant authorities with the necessary recommendation.

In the course of the inquiry, Suhakam has the power to procure all evidence, be it oral or written; and to summon any witnesses residing in Malaysia to give evidence or produce any documents and objects in his possession (e.g. video, photographs).

As such, it can be said that the role of Suhakam is to ensure that a thorough investigation is conducted on all issues in relation to the subject matter.

Any witness who gives evidence at the inquiry shall have the same right as a witness in court proceedings.

No person shall, in respect of any evidence given by that person before the commission, be liable to any action or proceeding, civil or criminal in any court except when the person is charged with giving or fabricating false evidence.

Edwin then asked: “What if Suhakam fails to hold an inquiry after a complaint is made?”

In the 2003 case of Subramaniam Vythilingam v The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia & Others, the High Court held that it was entirely up to Suhakam to hold an inquiry or not to, and the courts cannot interfere. However, once Suhakam decides to hold an inquiry, its mandatory powers can never be challenged.

“So is that all Suhakam can do? Make recommendations only?” Edmond asked.

I nodded with a sigh.

“Well, I would like to urge the Government to embrace human rights issues. Human rights are basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled and should not be subject to any scrutiny by any government,” Pravin added.

Danny commended the Government for opening up democratic space and for its recent statements on supporting human rights issues, such as reviewing the Internal Security Act (ISA) and allowing public assembly without permits under certain conditions.

However, these are mere pledges, and there is more that should be done. I for one believe that it is time to widen Suhakam’s powers.

After 10 years, maybe it is time for the Government to reflect on its shortcomings and give Suhakam more jurisdiction or clout, with the power to ensure its recommendations and sentences, if any, are carried out.

We should look to the European Convention on Human Rights as our benchmark. Any person who feels that his or her rights have been violated under the convention by a state party can take the case to the European Court of Human Rights, a court established by the convention.

The decisions of the European Court are not automatically legally binding, but it does have the power to award damages.

The European Convention is still the only international human rights agreement providing such a high degree of individual protection.

If our government is really serious about protecting our civil liberties, it is about time that Suhakam be given wider powers from their somewhat limited scope right now.

The writer is a young lawyer. Putik Lada, or pepper buds in Malay, captures the spirit and intention of this column – a platform for young lawyers to articulate their views and aspirations about the law, justice and a civil society. For more information about the young lawyers, visit www.malaysianbar.org.my/nylc.