Prosecute prison officers who brutalised detainees – Madpet

Malaysia, sadly, has a bad track record of successfully investigating, prosecuting and convicting public officers – including law enforcement personnel – who commit crimes of torture or cause deaths in custody.

These incidents frequently occur within government premises and in the presence of other public officers.

The public inquiry findings by the Malaysian human rights commission, Suhakam, dated 25 May 2026, into the Taiping Prison incident of 17 January 2024, exposed lies and false reports by public officers. These were exposed by credible CCTV evidence during the inquiry. The findings also revealed the destruction of evidence and failings in the police investigation.

The incident left one detainee dead, and over 100 others injured – some grievously while they were handcuffed.

A poor record

How many public officers in Malaysia have actually been charged and successfully convicted for crimes of extrajudicial killings, ‘murder’ or torture in Malaysia?

On 10 February 2026, Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail reportedly stated that a total of 327 suspects were shot dead by police in 193 cases between 2015 and 2025. Malaysian citizens accounted for the highest number at 172, followed by 68 Indonesians, 24 Vietnamese, 23 Filipinos, seven Myanmar nationals, three Africans, two Bangladeshis, and one Thai national.

How many police officers have to date been charged in court for these extrajudicial killings or murders? Mind you, it is the court that determines guilt, evaluates any possible police defence, and decides whether or not to acquit them.

The same question applies to the many deaths in custody over the years. On 5 February 2026, the home minister reportedly revealed that a total of 42 deaths in custody were recorded in 2025. He said the figure comprised eight cases in prison and 34 under police care, including 22 deaths during active detention and 12 in police lock-ups.

While it may be true that some of the deaths could have been due to natural causes, it has been shown that many of these deaths were due to torture, beatings, or other acts and omissions of public officers.

Again, the question is about the number of public officers who have been charged and successfully convicted. The civil courts have on several occasions found these officers liable – which is why the lack of successful criminal convictions is a relevant question.

Delays and failure to charge

Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) is appalled that the home minister is now vaguely talking about conducting “further investigations into the findings and conclusions” of Suhakam, rather than clearly stating that the government will act to ensure all those criminally liable are charged forthwith.

The minister’s statement would have been much clearer if he had assured us that everyone criminally liable will be promptly investigated, charged in court, tried, and convicted if found guilty by the court. Instead, the minister’s statement is vague.

Madpet worries that the government may yet again fail to act speedily to charge all perpetrators, choosing instead to delay by focusing on investigations to counter the findings of Suhakam – just as it did regarding Suhakam’s findings on enforced disappearances. The end result, once again, may be that none of these public officers are charged, tried or convicted. Justice will not be done.

In this case, Suhakam found that the torture, beatings and violence were initiated by the prison officers against more than 100 detainees. These individuals were not convicted criminals serving a sentence, but pre-trial detainees who either could not afford bail or were denied bail by law, and are still waiting for their trials to begin or continue.

When the torture commenced, the detainees were already handcuffed behind their backs, yet they were still subjected to beatings, assaults with wooden and metal batons, and even had their eyes sprayed with pepper spray.

It is disappointing that the home minister recently stated that he is “very proud” of the Prison Department. “As for the reputation of the Prisons Department throughout my three years here, I am very proud of this department,” he said.

This makes one wonder whether the perception that the government ‘protects’ public officers is true. Is it because the minister or the state wants to project the impression that the government and its public officers are perfect and commit no crimes?

If public officers are found guilty of committing crimes while on duty, the blame naturally falls on the responsible minister and the government, who failed in their duty and responsibility to ensure a clean administration with good public officers.

The idea of a perfect administration is a myth, for there will always be ‘bad apples’. What the government must do is not cover-up their crimes, but take a strong stance ensuring they are investigated, charged, tried and convicted. A good government gets rid of its bad apples, if they are found guilty. That is what the public expects of any good government.

Charge all who broke the law

Madpet is deeply concerned that the home minister or the government may yet again form a ‘task force’ to ‘investigate” Suhakam’s findings, delaying action against the criminal perpetrators.

This has happened before. Suhakam found on 3 April 2019 that the police caused the enforced disappearances of Raymond Koh and Amri Che Mat. No one has been charged to date.

What the government did then, was to form a special task force to look into Suhakam’s findings. The task force report was then classified as an official secret, and people in Malaysia are still waiting for access to it.

Did the task force agree with Suhakam or not? If it agreed, why has no action been taken to identify the criminal perpetrators and charge them yet? Were they acting on their own or following someone’s orders?

In civil suits commenced by the families of Koh and Amri, they had to apply for an order to gain access to this task report report. The High Court finally ordered access, but with conditions.

In Amri’s case, the court reportedly ordered “the limited release of a special task force report that is classified as an official secret on the disappearance of activist Amri Che Mat within 30 days. Norhayati is prohibited from sharing the report with any member of the public, except for her lawyers.”

She subsequently won her case in November 2025. Still, no criminal investigations or charges have followed.

In short, does this support the suggestion of a cover-up, possibly to protect public officers and maybe the police, the ministry, or the government? If the failure to charge [those responsible] stems instead from a lack of sufficient evidence, then the public must be informed.

Madpet hopes that, in the Taiping Prison case, such delays do not prevent those criminally liable from being charged and properly prosecuted.

Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution states: “(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.”

This means no one in Malaysia is above the law, and that includes public officers and ministers.

‘Double jeopardy’ just an excuse?

It is absurd that the prison authority has allegedly suggested that charging others or taking disciplinary action would constitute “double jeopardy” simply because one prison warden has already been charged.

A similar argument has arisen in the past: that if the public officers had already been subjected to disciplinary action, it would be “double jeopardy” if they are charged for similar crimes in court.

This is an absurd proposition. A public officer can be criminally charged in court and face disciplinary action by his or her employer at the same time.

Under Malaysian law, you can still be charged in court even if disciplinary action (such as a warning or termination) has already been taken against you by your employer (in this case, the government).

The legal protection against double jeopardy under Article 7(2) of the Federal Constitution only applies to being tried and punished twice for the exact same criminal offence by a court. It means you cannot be charged in court twice for the same offence.

Thus, even if disciplinary action has already taken against a public officer, that public officer can still be charged for the crime he committed, even if the charge in front of the disciplinary board is the same or of a similar nature.

“The justification given by Prison Department commissioner general Datuk Abdul Aziz Abdul Razak that taking disciplinary action would result in double jeopardy is legally incorrect,” Hishamudin Yunus said, adding that double jeopardy refers to double court proceedings on the same issue.

He noted that “failure to take any action against the prison personnel involved would create the impression that they enjoy special privileges and are immune from the law”.

Charge all involved

While one prison warden was charged with culpable homicide in December 2025 following an inmate’s death at Taiping Prison, this is odd given that Suhakam’s findings point to violence inflicted by about 60 prison officers on roughly 100 detainees handcuffed behind their backs. The deceased was one of the detainees.

Madpet believes that all accomplices who inflicted violence on the deceased, 62-year-old Gan Chin Eng, resulting in his death, should also be charged – for murder, not culpable homicide.

Other potential accomplices could be the medical officers whose delays or negligence may have contributed to his death – for, if not, Gan may not have died at all.

The charging of just one person looks like an attempt to pacify public anger while ‘protecting’ other criminals. It is the court, after a full trial, that will decide who is guilty of the crime and who is guilty of lesser crimes, or not at all. All those involved must be charged.

Lying, false reports and evidence destruction

According to Suhakam’s findings, the crimes committed and those criminally liable include:

• All prison officers present on the day who intentionally inflicted torture, injury or grievous hurt on the 100-plus detainees – and caused the death of one – must be investigated under the Penal Code for causing hurt (Section 321), causing grievous hurt (Section 322), voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons (Section 324) and murder (Section 302). Their superiors may also be criminally liable.
• The prison officers who lied in official reports and during the Suhakam inquiry, whose lies were exposed by credible CCTV evidence – these are also crimes in Malaysia
• The prison officers who destroyed relevant evidence, including CCTV footage and video or photos on their mobile phones. These are also serious crimes, more so when done by public officers. They must be charged under Section 201 of the Penal Code (causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information, which carries up to 7–10 years’ imprisonment), Section 191 (giving false evidence), and Section 192 (fabricating false evidence) and for other offences.

No public officer can escape criminal liability by claiming they were just following orders from superiors or even ministers. Public officers have the right to refuse orders to commit crimes or violate human rights.

This principle is reflected in Section 20(1) of the Police Act, which states that officers must obey all lawful directions. [There is no duty to obey an unlawful order to commit a crime.]

Every police officer shall perform such duties and exercise such powers as are by law imposed or conferred upon a police officer, and shall obey all lawful directions in respect of the execution of his office which he may from time to time receive from his superior officers in the Force.

Kindness, not abuse

It is also relevant to look at the expected conduct of prison officers.

Regulation 55 (on the duty of prison officers) of the Prison Regulations 2000 states:

It is the duty of all prison officers to treat all prisoners with kindness and humanity, to listen patiently to and report their complaints or grievances, at the same time to be firm in maintaining order and discipline and enforcing the provisions of the Act, these Regulations and Commissioner General’s Standing Orders.

On the use of force, Regulation 56 states:

• No officer shall strike a prisoner unless compelled to do so in self-defence or in defence of another person or prisoner or when ordered to inflict corporal punishment.
• A prisoner struck by a prison officer in self-defence or in defence of another person or prisoner shall be examined as soon as possible by the Medical Officer and an immediate report of the incident shall be made to the Officer-in-Charge.

The crimes committed by prison officers in the Taiping Prison incident are a most serious breach of the laws governing prisons. Justice must be served.

Madpet calls on:

• The home minister and the government to immediately clarify and confirm that all those who committed crimes will be swiftly investigated, charged in court, and accorded a fair trial, and if convicted sentenced justly
• The authorities to charge perpetrators not just for the crimes of torture, causing hurt or serious hurt, and murder only, but also for filing false reports, lying during the Suhakam inquiry, and destroying evidence
• The prosecution to charge all superiors who gave orders to commit crimes and violate human rights
• The courts to order the convicted to pay compensation to all victims upon conviction, as provided for under Section 426 of the Criminal Procedure Code
• The relevant authorities to appoint a new, independent police investigation team and a new deputy public prosecutor to deal with the criminal investigations, given Suhakam’s observations about the police investigations (para 61(h), page 19 of the report), and the failures of the Attorney General’s Chambers (para 61(i), page 20)
• The government to ensure that public officers who violate the law and the human rights of detainees, suspects and others are speedily dismissed, as the people want clean and honest public officers and bad apples to be cast out swiftly

We must end the culture of protecting public officers and politicians who commit crimes. We must ensure that all persons are truly equal before the law and entitled to equal protection – and that includes the victims of human rights violations. – Madpet, 10 June

Charles Hector issued this statement on behalf of Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture.

Support Aliran's work with an online donation. Scan this QR code using your mobile phone e-wallet or banking app: