Who protects the falsely accused?

The recent Free Malaysia Today (FMT) opinion piece, Probe Sexual Misconduct Claims, But Don’t Forget The Victims, advances a principle with which no reasonable person should disagree: genuine victims of sexual harassment deserve protection, dignity and justice.

But there is another principle every bit as important. An allegation is not a conviction. A complainant is not automatically a proven victim, and an accused person is not automatically a perpetrator.

That distinction appears to have been dangerously blurred in the public discussion surrounding the allegations involving the Pengarah of a Sabah hospital.

The rule of law cannot operate on the basis that an allegation, once repeated loudly enough or circulated widely enough on social media, somehow becomes established fact.

The Police Investigated And the Case Was Classified NFA

There is now an important document that cannot simply be brushed aside.

A letter dated 29 July, 2026, from the Criminal Investigation Division of the Kota Kinabalu District Police Headquarters states that the investigation arising from Police Report Inanam/000375/26, concerning an alleged offence investigated under Section 354 of the Penal Code, was referred to the Sabah State Prosecution Director’s Office for scrutiny and examination.

The police letter then records the outcome: the case was classified NFA, No Further Action.

The matter was not merely dismissed over coffee by colleagues sympathetic to the Pengarah. It entered the criminal investigative process. The investigation was conducted by the police and, according to the police’s own letter, referred to the State Prosecution Director’s Office before the NFA classification was recorded.

Those who continue publicly discussing the allegation as though guilt has already been established therefore owe their readers an answer:

What evidence do they possess that the investigating authorities and prosecutors did not?

If they believe the investigation was defective, then identify the defect and produce the evidence. Otherwise, insinuation cannot be permitted to substitute for proof.

Joan Goh Put The Issue Precisely

Lawyer Joan Goh, acting for the hospital director, has publicly emphasised the fundamental distinction that appears to have been lost amid the controversy.

Her statement from 15 August, 2026, was unequivocal: her client has not been found guilty of sexual harassment by any court or disciplinary body, and she stated that the police matter had been classified NFA.

Perhaps the most important sentence in her statement was also the simplest: “An allegation is an allegation. A finding of misconduct is something different.”

That should not be controversial, since it is the foundation of natural justice.

Goh has further argued that an administrative transfer is not a conviction and not a finding of misconduct. Her client’s position is that the transfer itself is being challenged on grounds including procedural fairness and whether he was afforded a proper opportunity to be heard.

These issues should be determined through lawful administrative and judicial processes, not through trial by headline.

What Happened To The Presumption Of Innocence?

There is an uncomfortable imbalance in much of the present commentary.

We repeatedly hear: what about the complainant? That is a legitimate question. But there is another: what about the accused?

What happens to a doctor’s reputation after decades of public service when an allegation is broadcast nationally before wrongdoing has been established?

Who restores his professional standing if the allegation ultimately cannot be substantiated? Who repairs the damage to his family?

Who gives him back the months during which his name has been associated publicly with terms such as “sexual harassment”, “assault”, and “bullying”?

The presumption of innocence was created precisely because accusations can destroy people long before courts or investigators determine the truth.

Natural justice protects everybody, including genuine victims. The moment we decide that allegations alone are sufficient to condemn someone, we have abandoned justice in favour of popularity.

Due Process Cannot Mean “Believe The Process Only When We Like The Result”

There is a particularly troubling contradiction here. Critics demand investigations, which is fair enough. But what happens when investigations are actually conducted and their outcomes do not support the narrative some people expected?

Do we simply demand another investigation, and another? And continue until somebody produces the answer we wanted from the beginning? That is not due process.

The relevant question is whether the investigations were proper, impartial and procedurally fair. If there is evidence that they were not, produce it.

But an unfavourable outcome is not, by itself, evidence of a defective investigation.

In this case, we now have documentary confirmation that the police investigation was referred for prosecutorial scrutiny and ultimately classified NFA. That fact deserves at least as much prominence as the original allegation.

A senior doctor approaching the end of a career spanning approximately three decades has accumulated a professional history that can be examined.

If there were previous findings of comparable misconduct, they would obviously be relevant.

But if there were none, that too is relevant when assessing the fairness of casually destroying a person’s reputation before misconduct has been proved.

The public should therefore be very careful about converting an accusation into a verdict.

Protect Complainants And Protect The Accused

There is nothing inconsistent about believing that sexual harassment must be investigated vigorously while simultaneously insisting that accused persons receive natural justice.

Indeed, one cannot genuinely support justice without supporting both. A credible system must be capable of saying:

Investigate every serious complaint.
Protect complainants from intimidation.
Preserve evidence.
Hear witnesses.
Give the accused an opportunity to answer.
Allow independent investigators to do their work.
Respect the findings unless there is credible evidence justifying their challenge.

Anything less risks replacing justice with mob adjudication. The FMT article is therefore correct about one thing: victims must never be forgotten.

But it leaves unanswered the more difficult question raised by cases such as this: at what point does an accused person become a victim too, particularly when institutions investigate, no finding of guilt is established, the criminal investigation ends in NFA, yet public condemnation continues?

Allegation Is Not Guilt

Goh’s formulation deserves repeating: “An allegation is an allegation. A finding of misconduct is something different.”

That distinction should be engraved into every discussion of sexual misconduct allegations.

We should neither automatically disbelieve complainants nor automatically believe accusations. We should believe in evidence, investigation, and natural justice.

And above all, we should believe that a person’s reputation cannot be destroyed merely because an accusation is politically attractive, emotionally compelling or repeatedly amplified in public.

If new credible evidence emerges, investigate it. If wrongdoing is proved, punish it.

But if the authorities have investigated and the evidence does not justify further criminal action, society must have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that outcome as well.

Otherwise, we are no longer asking for justice, but asking for a conviction first and evidence later. And that should frighten every Malaysian, because tomorrow, the accused could be any one of us.

The author is the immediate past president and founding president of the Association of Private Practitioners Sabah (APPS).

This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of CodeBlue.