THE DEATH OF TEOH BENG HOCK: Lawyers say highly unusual manner of interrogating witness
THE duration of questioning endured by Teoh Beng Hock has raised the eyebrows of the legal fraternity.
Lawyers who spoke to Malay Mail felt that it “did not make sense” to keep Teoh for almost 11 hours when he was only a witness in an investigation.
“The way the interrogation was conducted was highly unusual. Keeping a person who is not a suspect but a witness for 10 hours of questioning just does not make sense,” said criminal lawyer Keppy Wong.
He said since Teoh was a witness, he was fulfilling his duty as a responsible citizen by cooperating with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission.
“Instead, he was treated in a way he should not have been,” Wong said, adding that Teoh should not have been interrogated until the wee hours of the morning on the account of him being there to assist with the case.
Wong said there were no laws governing the interrogation of witnesses, and such, they could decide to not cooperate, if they wished.
However, the all-encompassing sections 30 (1) (a) and (b) of the MACC Act empowers MACC investigating officers to summon anyone to be present in front of the investigating officer to be interrogated to assist in any investigations, and also to assist in investigations at any time stated by the officer.
Wong said this did not mean that MACC officers should have kept Teoh for almost 11 hours as this breached his fundamental rights.
Another lawyer, Wan Azmir Wan Majid, said while MACC officers have powers under the MACC Act, as well as the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which bars the questioning of a suspect between 6.30pm and 6.30am, it was their duty to be reasonable.
“The investigating officers are required to apply the ‘eggshell test’ whereby, they should be able to think reasonably whether their actions are excessive on the person interrogated or not,” he said.
Wan Azmir said while the MACC Act and CPC were the two pieces of legislature governing MACC officers, the over-riding law was none other than the Federal Constitution.
He said Article 5 of the Federal Constitution clearly states that:
1. No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.
2. Where a complaint is made to the High Court or any judge thereof that a person is being unlawfully detained, the court shall inquire into the complaint and, unless satisfied that the detention is lawful, shall order him to be produced before the court and release him.
3. Where a person is arrested, he shall be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest and shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.
4. Where a person is arrested and not released, he shall, without unreasonable delay, and in any case within 24 hours (excluding the time of any necessary journey) be produced before a magistrate and shall not be further detained in custody without the magistrate's authority:
Provided that this clause shall not apply to the arrest or detention of any person under the existing law relating to restricted residence, and all the provisions of this clause shall be deemed to have been an integral part of this Article as from Merdeka Day.
“Regardless of any situation, investigating officers should follow this rule and treat witnesses fairly and reasonably,” Wan Azmir said. – The Malay Mail
