Inquest over, still no justice for man shot dead by cop

 

On Jan 10, 2023, at the end of the inquest into the police shooting death of Kathir Oli, the coroner delivered an “open verdict”. In essence, it meant that no one was found to have to answer for his death.

It was a great disappointment to his family, friends, and concerned members of the public. It failed to offer closure to his family who had waited about 10 years for an inquest to be called to clear the name of the son they had lost.

Kathir was shot dead after midnight on Sept 15, 2011. He and his friends had gone to a pub in Ipoh for a drink but were denied entry. This led to a brawl; glasses were thrown and the pub’s door was broken before both sides withdrew.

After that, the Perak police chief (CPO) held a press conference in the morning - less than 12 hours after the shooting - along with a sensational splash in the media of armed robbery at a pub using parangs; of an injured detective who had to shoot and kill in self-defence; and of three accomplices who had been arrested and remanded on charges of attempted murder.

Police can’t get own story straight

In a letter to the CPO a month after the incident, Kathir’s wife Janaki contested each of the claims, saying that his statement smacked of a cover-up of abuse of police powers.

In the 11 years after the incident, as the matter was heard first at the High Court and then at the inquest, much of the story told by the police began to unravel and turned out to be either pure fiction or claims unsubstantiated by sufficient evidence.

In fact, many of the claims were demolished by the storytellers themselves through their own affidavits, witness statements, and court documents that exposed shoddy investigations, incompetence, contradictions and abuse of power.

Was there a robbery at the pub? In her grounds of judgement, the coroner said there was insufficient evidence to prove there was one. The pub owner had made a police report and statements had been taken from several witnesses from the pub. If conclusive evidence of a robbery couldn’t be gleaned from these, then to the lay mind, there was no robbery. Besides, no robbery charge was ever made after the incident.

Did Kathir and friends wield parangs? No. According to the testimony of the Ipoh Police’s Criminal and Investigation Department officers, no parangs were found at the scene of the incident.

Was there an attempt to murder the police detective involved? That was the charge under which Kathir’s three friends were arrested and remanded after the shooting. But the charge was obviously not tenable and too far-fetched for the police themselves as became evident when they released the three men on police bail and then freed them.

Did Detective Cheah Yew Teik shoot in self-defence? The coroner in her grounds of judgment said that he was performing his duty as a police officer in an attempt to stop a criminal act on the pub and on himself.

Kathir’s family and friends asked what criminal act warranted shooting to kill. Was there an immediate and present danger to Cheah’s life, for surely that must be the circumstance under which you shoot someone point blank on the left side of his chest?

The family’s counsel M Puravalen submitted that Kathir and two friends, Shashi and Sanger, were inside their parked car about to leave when suddenly Cheah - in plainclothes and unidentified - appeared pointing a gun from behind the car, ordering them to stop.

Kathir and Shashi alighted and a scuffle ensued. Cheah was armed, Kathir and Shashi were not. Cheah shot Kathir, then walked to his car to get handcuffs and proceeded to handcuff Kathir’s friends.

The family’s lawyer Puravalen further submitted that in a situation of danger to one’s life, one should retreat, move away, and not further inflame the situation. Further, Puravalen contended that it was not a situation of Kathir resisting arrest. Thus, the justification of self-defence in this case defies common sense.

Cracking under pressure

These inconsistencies would not have come to light if the family had not challenged the refusal by the state director of prosecutions to initiate an inquest. Perhaps that was the reason behind the continued denial of a probe.

It is only when pressured by actions that challenged the police’s story, including reports by Shashi and friends after their release, a complaint to the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) by PSM - which was assisting the family - letters to the Prosecutions Department by the Lawyers of Liberty, and candlelight protests, that the director of prosecutions came up with baffling justifications for his stand.

He said that other individuals were going to be charged under the Penal Code in connection with the death, and so as the law allowed, an inquest would not be needed. The charges include causing mischief and voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from doing his duty.

How could these charges be linked to the death of Kathir? One of the three men who had been remanded was charged and fined RM5,000, but the question remained: Why was Kathir shot dead?

Kathir’s brother, represented by Puravalen, challenged and overturned the no-inquest decision at the High Court in July 2020. The High Court ordered the investigation papers to be forwarded to the magistrate to decide if an inquest was warranted. The magistrate decided it was.

Now with the open-verdict ending of this hard-fought-for inquest, the quest for justice for Kathir and the many forgotten victims of police brutality and abuse of power continues. The verdict will be appealed. - Mkini

---

RANI RASIAH is a PSM central committee member.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.