Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram) has voiced serious concerns over the reluctance of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) to lodge police reports against prison officers who have provided false testimonies during the ongoing public inquiry into the Jan 17 assault at Taiping Prison, Perak that resulted in the death of a 62-year-old inmate.
Suaram’s executive director, Azura Nasron, highlighted that several Taiping Prison officers who testified denied any involvement in hitting or kicking detainees. However, these denials were contradicted by CCTV footage presented during the inquiry.
“Suaram calls on Suhakam to immediately lodge a police report to initiate an independent investigation into false and misleading testimonies,” Azura said in a statement today.
“If Suhakam is to play a serious role in holding enforcement authorities accountable, it must demonstrate that its processes cannot be manipulated. Delaying action only sends the wrong signal about institutional tolerance for false testimony under oath and weakens public confidence in the inquiry’s outcome.”
On July 10, lawyer T. Shashi Devan, who is representing 99 detainees from the Taiping Prison who were allegedly assaulted, said he hoped Suhakam would file a police report against Prison Department witnesses for giving false testimonies during the commission’s inquiry. Devan repeated that call on 5 August, and emphasised that delaying action until the inquiry concluded would send the wrong message to witnesses who are yet to testify.
“When shown the recordings, only some officers admitted to their actions – after repeated warnings from the inquiry panel that they were under oath. Others continued to downplay their conduct using euphemistic terms such as “sentuh” (touch), or by citing intent such as “menakutnakutkan” (to scare),” said Azura.
“This is not the first instance of false testimony. Their sworn statements to Suhakam in March similarly omitted or denied any involvement, despite evidence to the contrary. Repeated breaches of the oath should not be allowed to accumulate unchecked,” said Azura.
She added that each dishonest testimony risks obscuring case details that are not visible in the CCTV recordings, which lack audio.
“Such details are essential for Suhakam to establish a complete picture of the events, institutional dynamics, and underlying causes necessary for credible findings and effective reform recommendations,” she said.
“The argument that lodging a police report would create an ‘investigation within an investigation’ is also misplaced.”
She added that a police report does not interfere with Suhakam’s inquiry, since the inquiry focuses on uncovering systemic failures through the assault in Taiping Prison and recommending critical prison reforms, while a police investigation of a report focuses on specific violations of the law.
“We maintain that by acting against false testimony, Suhakam will be safeguarding the integrity of the inquiry,” she said.
Suaram provided two examples to illustrate its concerns:
On Day 11 (July 10) of the inquiry, prison officer Raja Masrul Azan Raja Mansor repeatedly denied using his phone to record the assault, despite CCTV footage showing that he did. Four weeks have passed, and Suhakam has not recovered the phone he used.
There was a striking similarity in the testimonies of all five officers in Week 4 of the inquiry. All the officers cited utterances of profanities, and death or rape threats by detainees as the reason why they “lost it” and beat the detainees. These near-verbatim patterns raise serious concerns of coaching or collusion.
“We note that there is sworn evidence that they had met together in a room to watch the recordings before they came to testify,” said Azura. “The inquiry panel, conducting officers, and observers have had to spend much time and effort establishing truths that should have been voluntarily disclosed.”
Yesterday, Khairol Azmeer Ibrahim, a sergeant at Taiping Prison, was recalled for further questioning on key inconsistencies, including his purported knowledge of deceased detainee Gan Chin Eng’s history of heart problems and whether he had met other Taiping Prison officers while lodging the police report on Gan’s death.
“In the face of such protracted attempts to untangle misleading accounts, Suhakam’s continued inaction is untenable,” said Azura.