After the fall
AS the cause of the sudden death of Selangor Customs assistant director Ahmad Sarbaini Mohamed could not be determined by the police, it is a death in which an inquest has to be held, as stated by Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail. This is provided for under the law and the A-G is under an obligation to direct a magistrate to hold an inquest. But there are other compelling reasons for a legal inquiry into the causes and circumstances of Sarbaini's death. Technically, it may not be classified as death in custody, as the deceased neither died in a police lock-up nor in prison. All the same, as he apparently fell to his death in the course of seeing officers of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission in the federal capital, there is good reason to subject the facts pertaining to his fatal fall to careful scrutiny.
Indeed, his death cannot be explained away as some sort of freakish occurrence. As another sudden death took place in similar circumstances at the offices of the MACC in 2009, the judicial system is under an extra obligation to provide a plausible explanation as to the cause of death. Moreover, the guidelines issued by the Chief Judge of Malaya in February 2007 stated that in cases in which the views of the family or other significant members of the public are such that an inquest is likely to assist in maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice, health services or other public agencies, it should be held.
Unfortunately, as necessary as it may be, such an inquest may not be sufficient in helping to mitigate the negative fall-out. As the case of Teoh Beng Hock illustrates, some are not open to an open verdict. Neither are family and friends open to a verdict of suicide. The inconvenient truth is that though an inquest is not a trial, the MACC has been put on trial. And the only admissible verdict in this inquisitorial court of public opinion seems to be one that finds the MACC guilty of sins of omission and commission in their deaths. Where such evidence is available and proven beyond all reasonable doubt, this should certainly be a good enough verdict for everyone. But as the circumstances surrounding Sarbiani's death and the involvement of a third party remain far from clear, any predisposition to selectively credit or dismiss facts and to take a particular position will be as good as guesswork. This is why it would be wrong to pre-judge the inquest and draw premature conclusions.
Unfortunately, as necessary as it may be, such an inquest may not be sufficient in helping to mitigate the negative fall-out. As the case of Teoh Beng Hock illustrates, some are not open to an open verdict. Neither are family and friends open to a verdict of suicide. The inconvenient truth is that though an inquest is not a trial, the MACC has been put on trial. And the only admissible verdict in this inquisitorial court of public opinion seems to be one that finds the MACC guilty of sins of omission and commission in their deaths. Where such evidence is available and proven beyond all reasonable doubt, this should certainly be a good enough verdict for everyone. But as the circumstances surrounding Sarbiani's death and the involvement of a third party remain far from clear, any predisposition to selectively credit or dismiss facts and to take a particular position will be as good as guesswork. This is why it would be wrong to pre-judge the inquest and draw premature conclusions.
0 comments:
Post a Comment