KUALA LUMPUR, March 22 — The Malaysian Bar moved today to school the police on their investigation processes, reminding the security force that remand orders are only sought if the accused poses a flight risk or may tamper with evidence.

In a statement here, newly-minted Bar president Steven Thiru said in the absence of these justifications, there would not be any need to keep an individual detained under remand, which he pointed out could be extended for up to 14 days.

“A remand order is a grave and harsh deprivation of an accused person’s liberty. It is not an order that the police should lightly or routinely seek unless it is fully justifiable,” the legal body chief said.

“The police should certainly not seek a remand order to harass and intimidate accused persons. Such conduct would be unprofessional, deplorable and unlawful.”

Steven cited the recent remand orders sought for several politicians and activists, including Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad, Fariz Musa, Mohd Fakhrulrazi Mohd Mokhtar, Adam Adli, Mandeep Singh and Teo Kok Seong over their alleged roles in the March 7 #KitaLawan rally, and said they had been without basis.

A remand order, he explained, is to enable the police to complete investigations and is not for the purpose of commencing investigations.

As such, he said it is imperative that the police show they have pursued the investigations diligently before proceeding with an application to remand an accused.

“The police cannot detain persons on remand in order to conduct investigations at their leisure,” he said.

Steven noted the police have also begun investigations under the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 against politicians Saifullah Zulkifli and Rafizi Ramli, as well as activist S. Jayathas, regarding the #KitaLawan rally in support of jailed Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

He said, however, that the probes indicated the police were ignoring the decision in Nik Nazmi’s case in the Court of Appeal last year, which ruled as unconstitutional the criminalising of spontaneous public assemblies in breach of the 10-day notice required under the Act.

In the April 2014 decision, the appellate court’s three-member panel chaired by Justice Datuk Mohamad Arif Md Yusof ruled that while the notice requirement under Section 9 (1) of the law passed the constitutional test, Section 9 (5) ― which imposes a maximum RM10,000 fine for non-compliance ― ran counter to the Federal Constitution and must be struck out.

Steven reminded the police force that a decision by the Court of Appeal, until reversed by the Federal Court, remains enforceable and binding.

“It is not open to anyone, including the police, to ignore the decision even if an appeal or a review of the decision is pending.

“As a law enforcement agency, the police must respect the law at all times, and not only when they wish or choose to do so.  The police cannot be a law unto themselves,” he said.

Saying the Malaysian Bar is deeply concerned by the manner in which the police have chosen to exercise their powers, Steven urged the force to exercise restraint and to respect every individual’s constitutional rights.