M Visvanathan, the lawyer for the family of G Jestus Kevin, said the Criminal Procedure Code clearly gave the exclusive power to a coroner to look into how and why a person came to his untimely death.

“When we have such a mechanism in our criminal law, why is there a need for Suhakam to conduct an inquiry and wouldn’t it be redundant and a waste of public funds?

“We don’t welcome any such inquiry as it breaches the law,” he said.

Visvanathan’s comments came after Suhakam commissioner Mah Weng Kwai said the Suhakam Act gave it the mandate to conduct such investigations on its own accord or in response to complaints.

“As long as an allegation has come to our attention, we can start,” Mah said.

Fellow commissioner Jerald Joseph had said Suhakam’s inquiry into Kevin’s death ended last April, months before the commencement of his inquest.

Visvanathan said the Suhakam findings would be of no use for the family if they wanted to pursue a civil action against the government for damages later.

“The Suhakam inquiry was done in secrecy and we were not called to participate or hold a watching brief to assist them,” he said.

He pointed out that under Section 18 of the Suhakam Act, the commission’s members and officers enjoyed immunity before the courts, as they “shall not be required to produce in any court any document received” during the course of their inquiry.

“I would advise the family to challenge Suhakam’s right to inquire into custodial deaths before the courts, on grounds that the commission breaches the Criminal Procedure Code.

“I think it is better to refer to the court so there can be clarity on the law,” he said.

Bernama had quoted Bentong police chief Yusof Unis as saying Kevin died in detention because of breathing problems and was free of Covid-19.

He had been arrested for investigations into theft cases on April 2 last year.