LFL to march to Parliament tomorrow, demand justice for Noorizwan

Lawyers for Liberty is organising a march after Noorizwan Zulkefly died in police custody. It wants justice for his family and accountability for anyone responsible. LFL is also pressing the government to establish the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission immediately. The action reflects concern that no police officer has been suspended or arrested more than three weeks after Noorizwan’s death.

The march is scheduled to begin at Taman Tugu at 10.30am. Noorizwan’s family and friends, civil society organisations, lawyers, and other Malaysians are expected to join. The group will move towards Parliament and hand a memorandum to MPs. LFL director Rania Aljunied said justice must be given to the family.

The police investigation had been ordered, but LFL said the case was still not classified as murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code. The march therefore combines a demand for accountability in this case with a wider call for independent police oversight. The case’s outcome will depend on forensic findings and the investigations already under way.

The Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission is proposed as an independent police oversight body. Its purpose is to receive and examine complaints about police conduct, including alleged misconduct. Independence matters because complaints involving police actions should be assessed by a body separate from the officers or departments involved. This can strengthen public confidence and accountability.

In this case, LFL is calling for the IPCMC to be formed immediately. The demand follows Noorizwan Zulkefly’s death in police custody and the absence, according to LFL, of police suspensions or arrests more than three weeks later. The commission is also mentioned as a body to which Noorizwan’s case was referred.

The article does not describe the IPCMC’s proposed powers or operating rules in detail. It presents the commission mainly as a needed independent safeguard for police complaints and misconduct. Establishing it would create a formal oversight mechanism beyond the investigations currently conducted by police departments and other authorities.

Noorizwan was confirmed dead at 1.52am on October 1. LFL announced the planned march more than three weeks later, saying no police officers had been suspended or arrested and nobody had yet been held accountable. The timing matters because the family and campaigners were demanding action while official inquiries were still continuing.

The inspector-general of police directed the Criminal Investigation Department at Bukit Aman to investigate. The Integrity and Standard Compliance Department was also conducting an investigation. The case had previously been classified as sudden death, and it had been referred to the Independent Police Conduct Commission. Laboratory analysis needed to establish the exact cause of death was still pending.

These overlapping processes formed the official response described in the article. LFL argued that the investigation should be classified under Section 302 of the Penal Code and that justice had not been served. The march was intended to press MPs and authorities for accountability, transparency, and the immediate creation of the IPCMC.

Noorizwan Zulkefly, aged 42, was arrested in Cheras on September 19. Police said he was being held to assist investigations involving drugs, housebreaking, and theft. On September 30, he was taken to Hospital Canselor Tuanku Muhriz. He was confirmed dead at 1.52am the following day, October 1.

Media reports cited in the article said an autopsy found no injuries to his internal organs. However, the examination identified several external injuries. Those unusual findings raised questions about what happened before his death. The article does not state that the injuries caused the death. It says the exact cause remained subject to laboratory analysis.

Inspector-General of Police Khalid Ismail then directed Bukit Aman’s Criminal Investigation Department to conduct an immediate investigation. Police had previously classified the case as sudden death, while the Integrity and Standard Compliance Department continued its inquiry. The case was also referred to the Independent Police Conduct Commission, and Noorizwan’s family requested an independent, transparent explanation.

Classification under Section 302 matters because it identifies an investigation as a murder case under Malaysia’s Penal Code. That classification can shape the investigative framework, the evidence sought, and the seriousness with which possible criminal responsibility is examined. It does not by itself prove that murder occurred or establish who is responsible.

In Noorizwan’s case, LFL said the Criminal Investigation Department had not classified the investigation under Section 302, even though the inspector-general of police had directed it to investigate. The organisation also pointed out that no police officers had been suspended or arrested after his death. Police had previously classified the case as sudden death.

The article says the exact cause of death was still awaiting laboratory analysis. It also reports several external injuries and a further investigation ordered by Khalid Ismail. The classification could therefore affect the direction of the inquiry, but a final conclusion requires forensic evidence, proper investigation, and due process.

The article identifies A. Kugan as the subject of a 2009 custodial-death case. It gives no further details about that earlier case. Its relevance comes from LFL’s comparison: Rania Aljunied described Noorizwan’s death as the worst custodial-death case since Kugan’s case. That comparison places the current controversy within a longer history of concern.

The comparison matters because deaths in police custody raise questions about the treatment of people held by the state and about whether investigations are independent and effective. In Noorizwan’s case, LFL highlighted that no police officers had been suspended or arrested more than three weeks after his death. It also objected that the inquiry was not classified as murder.

The article does not establish that the two cases had the same cause or circumstances. It only records LFL’s assessment that Noorizwan’s case was the most serious since 2009. The reference helps explain why campaigners are demanding accountability and the immediate establishment of an independent police complaints commission.

When a person dies in state custody, authorities controlled the person’s detention and therefore face a serious accountability obligation. An independent investigation can examine police conduct without depending solely on the officers or departments connected to the custody. Due process is equally important because conclusions should rest on reliable evidence, lawful procedures, and a fair assessment rather than assumptions.

Noorizwan’s case shows why both principles matter. An autopsy found several external injuries, but no internal-organ injuries were reported. His exact cause of death was still awaiting laboratory analysis. The case involved inquiries by Bukit Aman’s Criminal Investigation Department, the Integrity and Standard Compliance Department, and the Independent Police Conduct Commission.

The family demanded an independent and transparent investigation. LFL meanwhile demanded accountability and a murder classification under Section 302. The prime minister directed a thorough, transparent, uncompromising investigation and updates for the family. Those steps can help clarify responsibility while preserving fairness. The final findings should guide any criminal or disciplinary action.