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

The tragic saga of Francis Udayappan, with its many twists and turns, has dragged on for far too long, giving rise to an unprecedented case of prolonged torment to his family and an unhealthy atmosphere of mystery and doubt which worsens by the day.

The police's version of Francis' disappearance from custody more than 3 months ago is disputed by the latter's family. Weeks later a partially decomposed body was found, said by the police to be Francis'. His mother, when asked to identify the body, confirmed that it belonged to Francis, as claimed by the police. However, subsequently the police announced that DNA test showed otherwise. In disbelief, Udayappan's family asked that they be allowed to conduct a second independent DNA test, as well as a second post mortem. His family also requested to be furnished with a copy of the post mortem report and DNA test done by the authorities. Their requests were not entertained for a long time.

Various bodies, including Suhakam, non-governmental organisations and the Bar Council, have repeatedly expressed support for the aforesaid requests made by the family of Francis Udayappan.

Most recently, the Police Commission heard representations from the police on Monday (19/7/04), and concluded that an inquest must be held concerning the discovered body. The Bar Council supports this call, which is similar to what had earlier been urged by the Bar Council.

It is now learned that the Attorney General's chambers has, yesterday, directed that an urgent inquest be held concerning the body. We are also given to understand that the Attorney General's chambers has (on 19/7/04) given its consent for Francis' family to obtain a sample from the said body, for the purpose of a second independent DNA test. These are positive developments, albeit delayed. The way should now be cleared for Udayappan's kin to independently employ science to remove the doubt that has hovered overhead for so long. If assistance is required by the family in order to make the second DNA test a reality, it is hoped that the Malaysian Medical Association will take up this case as a matter of public interest.

More can be, and should be, done by the authorities to alleviate the prolonged anxiety suffered by Udayappan's family. In this regard the Bar Council urges all relevant authorities (including the police, the AG chambers and the hospital) to forthwith furnish Udayappan's family with a copy of the report of the first DNA test, or make the same immediately available to the expert(s) engaged by the family.

If the result of the second independent DNA test confirms that of the first, investigations must continue into what precisely had happened to Francis Udayappan. A transparent inquiry must be promptly conducted, in addition to the inquest into the identity and cause of death of the person whose body now lies in the mortuary.

On the other hand, if further DNA test reveals that the body belonged to Francis Udayappan, then his family must be immediately allowed to claim the body and to conduct a second independent post mortem on the same. The inquest must swiftly follow.

The suffering of Sara Lily George, a mother who has lost her son, is witnessed by an entire nation. She deserves as much compassion, empathy and justice as those that have been showered upon persons in other recent cases of tragedy that have come to the attention of the Malaysian public.

The Bar Council hopes that there will not be any further unnecessary delays in the handling of this matter. The Bar Council, like other concerned bodies, will closely monitor the progress of the matter. Should the need arise, the Bar Council will again seek urgent meetings with the relevant authorities, with the view to ensuring urgency of action on their part.

Dated 21^st July 2004

Yeo Yang Poh
Vice chairman
Bar Council