Cops Late To Act On Indira S Ex Husband S Arrest Order Former Igp

---

Former police chief Abdul Hamid Bador admitted the authorities took too long to arrest M Indira Gandhi’s ex-husband Muhammad Riduan Abdullah in the case of Indira’s kidnapped daughter.
Questioned by Indira’s lawyer, Hamid agreed the eight months between the Ipoh High Court’s mandamus order and the directive to all state police chiefs to arrest Riduan was “very late”.
“Based on your experience as a former IGP (inspector-general of police), do you agree or disagree that taking eight months to issue this directive is too slow?” asked lawyer Sachpreetraj Singh Sohanpal.
“Agreed, (it is) late,” Hamid (above) replied in the Kuala Lumpur High Court this morning.
Indira’s legal counsel contended that the delay allowed Riduan, named K Pathmanathan before his conversion to Islam, to flee the country.
On Oct 28, 2020, Indira filed a lawsuit over the police’s alleged failure to track Riduan down, arrest him, and recover her daughter Prasana Diksa from him.
According to the suit, the IGP allegedly failed to abide by two orders of the High Court in Ipoh which were issued on May 30, 2014.
The first order was a committal order for Riduan to be jailed for failing to return Prasana to Indira. The second one was a recovery order for the Royal Malaysia Police and the court bailiff to retrieve Prasana from Riduan and return the child to Indira.
M Indira GandhiDuring today’s hearing, Hamid replied in the affirmative when asked whether the directive should have been issued days after the Ipoh court’s decision.
He also agreed that the two years taken to place Riduan’s name on the wanted list were too long.
However, when asked if the police should have invested more effort into the investigation, Hamid replied in the negative.
During the hour-long questioning, Hamid claimed that he had called for a meeting after receiving information that Riduan was sighted in southern Thailand.
During the meeting, he claimed he had instructed the Crime Investigation Department to use all methods at its disposal and to cooperate with the Thai police to apprehend Riduan.
However, he could not produce any proof that the meeting had taken place.
‘Sham investigation’
Meanwhile, Yap Siew Cheng from the Ipoh Criminal Investigation Unit in charge of the search for Prasana since Nov 13, 2020, was also questioned today.
Indira’s lead counsel Rajesh Nagarajan asked her to confirm that Riduan had fled the country in March 2014, to which she replied “Yes”.
Citing Immigration Department records, Rajesh then asked her why the police were searching for Riduan in Malaysia. She did not respond.
Muhammad Riduan AbdullahRajesh contended that the investigation that had taken place was a “sham”.
He also accused Yap of perjury as she had knowledge of Riduan paying his traffic summons for speeding at Kota Bharu despite saying she was unsure about what Riduan had done after he had received the summons during her cross-examination earlier.
The dates of the summons or its payment were not mentioned.
Yap then clarified that although she had done checks on Riduan which included his speeding summons, she did not check on the location where he settled the summons.
In 2014, the Ipoh High Court ordered the police to retrieve Prasana from her father. In 2016, the Federal Court ordered the IGP to arrest Riduan.
Indira’s lawsuit claims that the IGP committed a tort of nonfeasance in public office by failing to arrest Riduan and recover Prasana.
The plaintiff is seeking declarations that the IGP has committed a tort of nonfeasance in public office and that the other three defendants are vicariously liable for the first defendant’s (IGP’s) tort of nonfeasance.
Indira is also seeking general, aggravated, and exemplary damages, interest, costs, and any other order deemed fit by the court. - Mkini

---