Indira Gandhi saga - Police have an eff-ing lot to answer for

Indira Gandhi saga: Police clumsiness or stonewalling?



The police must be deeply worried when the court tells them how to conduct investigations. It must hurt when the order comes with a punch in their kidneys.

For the public, it’s time to turn up the fear dial when acute police incompetence is laid bare in court.

For those seeking justice, hope turns to horror when they learn police had a plan, but one that was grossly inadequate.

In the case of M Indira Gandhi, who has been waiting since 2009 to hug her missing daughter, it must be asked whether the reunion is being hindered by the inefficiency of the cops or by an act of stonewalling.

On Monday, judicial commissioner Bhupindar Singh took aim at police for bungling the hunt for Indira’s fugitive ex-husband, Muhammad Riduan Abdullah, and their daughter Prasana Diksa, now 12 years old.

Prasana was 11 months old when her father snatched her before he converted to Islam. Their whereabouts are not known.

Bhupindar assailed investigators for their shoddy work, saying, according to reports: “This is why the lawyers are suggesting police are not serious in the investigation.”

As chairman of the judicial monitors, he punctured the work of the police, highlighting severe shortfalls.

At the receiving end was the Attorney-General’s Chambers, which represented the police, with senior federal counsel Nur Idayu Amir getting a ticking-off as well.

The missteps rang loud. A Mercedes Benz and Nissan Frontier were registered under Riduan’s name in 2015 and 2017 in Malaysia when he was said to have left the country in 2014.

Yet, police saw it as unnecessary to establish how the transaction was carried out, to identify the parties involved in the deal and to determine where Riduan got the funds to buy the cars.

Worse, they overlooked that the transfer of vehicle ownership required the buyer’s presence at the road transport department.

It became clear that police did not check with the Employees Provident Fund or the Inland Revenue Board whether any payment was made by any employer to determine whether Riduan was working in Malaysia.

Nur Idayu, in response to a question by Bhupindar, said police failed to check with Bank Negara Malaysia whether any transactions were made by Riduan in any bank here.

A glaring lead presented itself when Riduan’s driving licence was renewed on May 27 for validity until 2022 when he was not in the country. Nothing happened.

“Why does he need a Malaysian driving licence if he is not in Malaysia?” Bhupindar asked.

Even if the licence renewal could be done online as explained by Nur Idayu, wouldn’t the personal details of a wanted man be on the blacklist of the road transport department?

Bhupindar was also taken aback when told police could not locate Riduan’s second wife and their four children because they left for Thailand last year.

He raised questions about whether Riduan was living with them, about the need for a permit to reside in another country for a long period and about cooperation between Malaysian and Thai police.

Indira’s lawyer, Rajesh Nagarajan, said the events represented a masterclass of stonewalling by the police.

The public remains cynical of official narratives, including one given last October that police were negotiating through an intermediary to bring Riduan and Prasana back to the country.

While the liberal conception of the state is that it is blind to the characteristics of its citizens, this case is seemingly riddled with injustice.

Riduan, formerly K Pathmanathan, is in contempt of court for failing to return the girl to her mother.

Indira has accused the police of refusing to adhere to a committal order and a recovery order involving her missing child. Both the orders were obtained from the Ipoh High Court in 2014.

On Monday, the kindergarten teacher filed a contempt of court application against the police in relation to their failure to affirm affidavits every month and to submit them to the High Court from 2014 to 2020.

We know the police are competent and conscious of their public service principles. So how did incompetency sneak in?