Press Statement by Datuk Seri Panglima Wilfred Madius Tangau, UPKO Honorary President, Member of Parliament for Tuaran, Assemblyman for N.14 Tamparuli
KOTA KINABALU: A police report is information requiring assessment. It is not proof that an offence has occurred or that any person is guilty.
The two reports concerning the proposed Christian gospel concert therefore do not, without further evidence, establish that the proposed event is unlawful or that the organisers or performer have committed any wrongdoing.
The police may open an investigation where the information received discloses a possibleoffence or otherwise warrants further inquiry under the law.
An investigation is a fact-findingprocess, not a finding of guilt.On 28 September, the Sabah Police Commissioner reportedly said that two reports had beenreceived concerning the concert.
No investigation paper had been opened at that time, althoughthe police were monitoring the matter, recording statements and considering whether to advisepostponement on public-sensitivity and public-order grounds. Such advice is distinct from an investigation or enforcement action.
A security assessmentconsiders whether identifiable risks to public safety or order exist and whether they can bemanaged through lawful and proportionate measures. It does not, without further findings, establish that an event is unlawful.
Separately, police confirmed receiving 86 reports concerning remarks about a priest and a nunmade by Sepang UMNO division chief Datuk Noorazli Said.
An investigation was opened, and statements were reportedly recorded from 93 witnesses.
Datuk Noorazli subsequently apologised for the remarks. That apology is relevant context andshould be acknowledged, although it does not by itself determine the legal outcome of theinvestigation.
These matters may involve different facts, laws, evidence and security considerations andshould be assessed separately. The number of reports alone does not establish inconsistenttreatment.
One report may disclose information requiring investigation, while multiple reportsmay concern the same incident or repeat substantially the same allegations. Law enforcementcannot be judged solely by comparing report numbers.
Nevertheless, the public is entitled to understand the standards applied. Consistency does notrequire identical outcomes in different cases.
It requires the same commitment to legality,evidence, procedural fairness and objective reasoning, with material differences explainedwhere possible and lawful.Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution provides that all persons are equal before the law andentitled to the equal protection of the law.
This guarantee does not require every case to behandled identically. It requires that distinctions in treatment be based on relevant and lawfuldifferences rather than arbitrariness, discrimination or improper considerations.
Every report should therefore be assessed according to its facts and the applicable law,regardless of political affiliation, religion or community.
Political affiliation must neither shieldanyone from lawful scrutiny nor expose anyone to heightened scrutiny.
Likewise, a religiousgathering should not face greater scrutiny merely because objections or reports have beenmade.The authorities should distinguish between:* receiving a report;* assessing whether it discloses a possible offence or requires further action;* opening and conducting an investigation;* carrying out a security or public-order assessment; and* taking enforcement or prosecutorial action where the applicable legal requirements aresatisfied.
A report is not an investigation; an investigation is not proof of guilt; and a security assessmentis not proof of illegality.
Enforcement action or prosecution must be based on the applicable law,relevant facts and evidence sufficient for the decision in question—not merely on the existenceof reports, public pressure or controversy.Because the proposed event is a Christian gospel gathering, any restriction may also engagethe freedom to profess and practise religion under Article 11 of the Federal Constitution.
Thisdoes not exempt the event from lawful regulation, but it requires any restriction to rest on clear,lawful and proportionate grounds.
The organisers must comply with all applicable licensing, immigration, venue, safety andcrowd-management requirements.
Any decision to impose conditions on, postpone or prohibitthe concert must be authorised by law and based on specific and credible security, public-orderor other lawful considerations.
Public sensitivity may legitimately inform operational planning and security precautions, but itshould not operate as a free-standing veto.
Any recommendation to postpone or prohibit anevent should be connected to a lawful power, an identifiable risk and an assessment of whetherless restrictive measures would be sufficient.
The existence of two reports should not automatically determine the outcome for an event thatotherwise satisfies all applicable legal and regulatory requirements.
Where genuine risks areidentified, the authorities should explain them as clearly as legally and operationally possibleand consider whether appropriate safeguards or conditions can adequately address them.
Any restriction should be no broader than reasonably necessary to address the identified risk.I therefore call upon the police and other relevant authorities to clarify, as far as legallypermissible, the present status and general legal basis of action in both matters.
Suchdisclosure must not compromise an ongoing investigation or operational security.
Police reports initiate an assessment; they do not determine its outcome. Sabahans are entitledto one evidence-based standard of law enforcement—applied impartially, without political favour, religious prejudice or surrender to public pressure.
