The Malaysian Bar has called for a national protocol on police statements to the media, to set clear boundaries on what information can be publicly disclosed by the police
Bar president Ezri Abdul Wahab said premature disclosures by the police could jeopardise the right of an accused person to a fair trial, by creating public perceptions that may prejudice suspects before the courts have spoken.
“Transparency is best achieved through neutral status updates, not through disclosure of specific evidence or identities,” he said. “Such disclosures can cause unnecessary harm to suspects and their families, including stigma, harassment and reputational damage,” he told FMT.
Ezri said police should only provide the public with basic facts on investigations and other routine processes such as site visits, post-mortems or forensic analyses.
He also suggested the creation of a cross-agency working group comprising police, the Attorney-General’s Chambers, media representatives and the Bar to refine communication practices in line with fair trial rights and established security procedures.
Ezri said legislative or regulatory reinforcement could also be considered if needed to provide certainty and consistency without broadening secrecy beyond what the law already provides.
His comments come after lawyer S Vinesh urged police last week to exercise restraint in disclosing details on ongoing investigations, following comments by the Ipoh police chief on a recent murder case.
Ipoh police chief Abang Zainal Abidin Abang Ahmad had told the media that CCTV footage showed the victim being chased by a lorry before a scuffle occurred, leading to the victim being run over and left at the scene.
Vinesh, whose client was charged in the case, told FMT such details should not have been released while investigations were still continuing, as they could compromise his client’s right to a fair trial by shaping public perception and affecting his family.
Former Bar president Salim Bashir also said while public transparency is important, “excessive disclosure” of investigative information may undermine the integrity of trials.
He said besides publicly released investigative information possibly causing prejudice to both the accused and prosecution, trials are also guided by corroboration of facts that may support or contradict earlier extrajudicial statements made by enforcement authorities based on certain investigative angles.
