So, who is the IGP’s daughter selling firearms to?

If inspector-general of police Khalid Abu Bakar's daughter does not have a contract to sell firearms to the government, who is she selling firearms to?

That is the question posed by PKR central committee member Latheefa Koya during a forum in Kuala Lumpur held last night in remembrance of slain teenager Aminulrasyid Amzah six years ago.

As one of the panel members of the forum, she was responding to a question from an audience member, who had asked how and why police officers needed to have firearms.

"As far as I know, it's not the IGP's daughter supplying (the firearms). Because the IGP said the other day, even though his daughter has the licence to sell firearms, she doesn't have a contract with the government," Latheefa said, eliciting laughter from the crowd.

"His daughter sells quite sophisticated firearms and the question I want to ask is, if you don't supply the government or enforcement officers or the military, as the IGP said, who are you selling to?" she added.

Khalid (photo) said on Monday that the firearms company belonging to his daughter had obtained its business licence even before he helmed the police force.

He also revealed that he had barred his daughter from bidding for tenders linked to the government or police.

This was in response to an article by whistleblower site Sarawak Report that Khalid's second daughter, Juwiza, as well as his brother-in-law Mohd Isa Hussin, are owners of Nilai Arms & Ammunition (NAA).

'Set up the IPCMC'

During last night's forum, fellow panel member and lawyer Syahredzan Johan espoused the need for an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC).

"It might not have taken so long for (Aminulrasyid's) family to actually achieve justice. It might not need to take six years if we had the IPCMC in place at that particular point," Syahredzan said, comparing IPCMC and the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC), which have much more limited powers than what the IPCMC would have had.

Nothing has changed since Aminulrasyid's death, after the 14-year-old was shot by Corporal Jenain Subi during a car chase with the police, Syahredzan lamented.

If a similar incident were to happen today, the same discussions would still happen, he said.

"We would still be having the same discussion because the mechanism is not there, the accountability is not there.

"What has happened, even after the court decision came out? Nothing has happened," Syahredzan (photo) said, referring to the court's decision last month in the civil case concerning Aminulrasyid's death.

The court found Khalid, who was the Selangor chief police officer at that time, liable for public misfeasance in Aminulrasyid's case.

This is because Khalid had said in a statement the day after the teenager was shot dead that a parang had been found in the car.

The court had also ordered the defendants, including Khalid, in the civil case to pay RM414,800 in damages to Aminulrasyid's family.

The civil suit was filed by the family to claim damages for Aminulrasyid's death, allegedly due to gunshot wounds to the head caused by police negligence.

Besides Khalid, the other defendants named were Jenain, the Shah Alam district police chief and the Malaysian government.

Following the court's decision, Khalid was urged to apologise to Aminulrasyid's family, but he remained adamant that he would not do so, as he said his statement back then was based on the facts of the case at that time.

In November 2013, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision to acquit and discharge Corporal Jenain Subi on a charge of causing Aminulrasyid's death when he pursued the latter in a car chase along Jalan Tarian 11/2, Section 11, Shah Alam, between 1.10am and 2am on April 26, 2010. --Mkini