Stay connected with KayaToday, follow us on Instagram and Facebook for the latest news and reviews delivered straight to you.
Faizal Abdullah was 28 years old, on remand for drug charges, and still waiting for a chemist’s report when his health collapsed inside Seremban Prison. By June 20, he was dead. His family says they still do not know exactly where he died, what treatment he received, or why he was sent back to prison when he was too weak to walk. Now Malaysia’s Human Rights Commission is demanding answers that the system has so far failed to provide.
Suhakam issued a public statement calling for a formal inquest into Faizal’s death, describing it as necessary to establish the cause of death in a manner that is comprehensive, independent, and transparent. The commission specifically flagged that cases involving death in custody carry a heightened obligation for openness, because questions about how a detainee was treated, supervised, and cared for cannot be resolved through internal processes alone.
A Timeline That Raises More Questions Than It Answers
Faizal was charged on February 6 with three drug-related offences involving cannabis and methamphetamine. He fell seriously ill while in remand and was admitted to Tuanku Ja’afar Hospital on April 11. His sister Rafeya told FMT that at one point, the family was informed he had injured his vertebrae and might require urgent surgery. That advice was later reversed, and no surgery was performed.
On June 4, Faizal was returned to Seremban Prison despite still being physically weak and requiring assistance to move. When the family visited on June 18, prison authorities showed them only a video of Faizal, citing his inability to leave his cell. After the family insisted, he was brought out in a wheelchair. Rafeya described her brother as visibly distressed, crying, and complaining of severe back pain.
Two days later, she received a call from the prison saying Faizal had died after his oxygen level dropped. The account of where he died then shifted. The family was initially told he died at Tuanku Ja’afar Hospital, then heard he had died in transit. A post-mortem was conducted the following day, but Rafeya said the family was told the cause of death could not yet be determined, with samples sent for further testing. As of last month, no clear explanation had been provided.
Systemic Failures, Not Just a Single Case
Lawyer M. Visvanathan, who chairs the NGO Eliminating Deaths and Abuse in Custody Together, told FMT that an inquest is “certainly a necessity” in Faizal’s case, describing it as the proper forum for the family’s questions to be examined. He went further, pointing to a structural problem in how custodial deaths are handled in Malaysia.
“Whenever there is a death in custody, the coroner’s court must spring into action. Now families are given the runaround,” he said. Visvanathan drew on his own experience to argue that double standards exist in the medical treatment of prisoners and detainees, both among enforcement agencies and medical personnel. He called for a standalone Coroner’s Court Act that would allow an inquest to begin immediately upon a custodial death, removing the current requirement to wait for the Attorney-General’s Chambers to order one.
That procedural gap matters. Under the present framework, the AG’s Chambers holds discretion over whether a formal inquest is initiated at all, which means grieving families can wait months or longer for a process that should, in Visvanathan’s view, be automatic. Suhakam reinforced this concern by calling for all records related to Faizal’s case to be preserved without delay, including medical records, prison records, movement logs, CCTV footage, and any other documentation relevant to an investigation or court proceedings. The commission’s explicit mention of CCTV footage and movement logs signals awareness that physical evidence can disappear quickly if not secured early.
Why Custodial Deaths Demand a Higher Standard of Accountability
Faizal’s case sits within a broader pattern that Malaysian rights advocates have documented for years. When a person is held in state custody, the state assumes full responsibility for their physical welfare. That responsibility does not diminish because a detainee has been charged with a serious offence. Faizal had not been convicted of anything. He was on remand, legally presumed innocent, and the state was obligated to ensure he received adequate medical care.
The details Rafeya has shared suggest that obligation may not have been met. A man with a potential spinal injury was discharged from hospital while still unable to move independently. He was returned to a prison cell rather than a medical facility. When his family visited two days before his death, they were initially denied direct access to him. These are not minor administrative oversights. They are the kinds of decisions that an inquest is specifically designed to scrutinise.
Suhakam’s intervention matters because it adds institutional weight to what might otherwise remain a family’s private grief. The commission cannot compel an inquest on its own, but its public call creates pressure on the AG’s Chambers and the relevant authorities to act. Whether that pressure translates into a genuine, independent examination of Faizal’s death will be a test of how seriously Malaysia’s institutions take their obligations to people in their care. For the family, and for every other family that has faced the same silence after a custodial death, the answer to that question is long overdue.
Read More: Sabah’s 50% Renewable Target Is Ambitious. Here’s Whether the Numbers Add Up
