The recent controversy involving a director of a hospital in Sabah has moved beyond the original sexual harassment allegation and now raises a broader question of administrative fairness.
Can an institution claim to uphold due process while removing an accused officer from his post and placing the complainant into that same role before any final determination is made?
The core principle remains that an allegation is not a conviction, and both complainant protection and the accused’s right to fair process must be preserved.
The Director’s Removal
A Sabah State Health Department letter dated July 24, 2026 directed the director to report to the Medical Division of the State Health Department from July 27 onwards. Although framed as an administrative reassignment, the practical effect was that he ceased functioning as hospital director.
His lawyer, Joan Goh, has stated that while his civil service grade remained unchanged, his position did not, and that he had not been shown the investigation findings or basis for the action taken.
While temporary separation during investigations is not inherently improper, it must remain neutral in both form and effect.
The Complainant Assumes The Director’s Duties
On July 27, a second letter from the Health Department directed the deputy director to perform the duties of director until a permanent appointment was made.
If, as publicly reported, this officer was the complainant in the case, the sequence is notable:
- The director is removed from his role.
- The complainant assumes the functions of director.
- This occurs before any formal finding of misconduct against the director.
Even if intended merely to ensure administrative continuity, the arrangement raises legitimate concerns about perceived neutrality and the appearance of pre-judgement.
Administrative Action And Perception
The Ministry of Health (MOH) may characterise the reassignment as non-punitive, but fairness is assessed not only by intention but also by effect.
Removing a senior officer while allegations remain unresolved, and placing the complainant in his role, risks creating the public impression that a conclusion has already been reached.
The impact on the accused is immediate: loss of authority, reputational damage, and professional disruption.
If the purpose was simply to preserve the integrity of the investigation, surely alternative arrangements could have been considered that would not create the perception that one party was displaced while the other was elevated.
The Police Outcome
A Royal Malaysia Police letter dated July 29 confirmed that the case investigated under Section 354 of the Penal Code had been referred to the prosecution authorities and was subsequently classified NFA (No Further Action).
An NFA does not amount to a judicial declaration of innocence, nor does it necessarily prevent a separate internal disciplinary process.
But neither should its significance be dismissed. It confirms that the criminal investigation did not proceed to prosecution.
Importantly, an allegation is not proof of guilt, just as an NFA is not, by itself, a judicial declaration that an allegation was false.
Due Process And Institutional Fairness
As stated publicly by the director’s lawyer, no court or disciplinary body had found her client guilty. That distinction is fundamental. An allegation is one thing. A finding of misconduct is another.
When the state acts before investigations are concluded, interim measures should be carefully structured so that neither party appears to have been punished, rewarded, vindicated or condemned prematurely.
That is where the circumstances of this case become particularly uncomfortable. The accused director was removed from his position. The complainant then assumed the functions of that position.
And this occurred before any formal determination of guilt had been established. Whatever the administrative explanation, the appearance of injustice is difficult to ignore.
Protecting Both Parties
Sexual harassment complaints must be taken seriously. They must be independently investigated, and complainants must be protected against intimidation or retaliation but protecting a complainant does not require abandoning the rights of the accused.
The accused must likewise be protected from premature institutional consequences before allegations have been proven. These are not competing principles. They are the two sides of natural justice.
A system that automatically dismisses complainants is unjust. But a system that effectively presumes guilt simply because an accusation has been made is also unjust.
Questions That Deserve Answers
The sequence of events therefore raises several important questions:
- Why was the director removed from his position before any final determination of wrongdoing?
- Why was the complainant permitted to assume the director’s functions while the allegations remained unresolved?
- What safeguards were put in place to ensure that neither the investigation nor subsequent administrative processes were prejudiced?
- Was the director given the investigation findings and a meaningful opportunity to answer them before action affecting his position was taken?
- Following the police decision to classify the criminal investigation as NFA, what was the evidential and administrative basis for continuing any adverse action against him?
These are not attacks on complainants or genuine victims of sexual harassment. They are questions about procedural fairness, institutional neutrality and natural justice.
One Standard Of Justice
Malaysia must be capable of protecting both complainants and accused persons. Every credible complaint deserves to be investigated.
Any person accused deserves a fair and just hearing. Any presumptive suggestions shouldn’t be assumed as false or true until due diligence is executed.
Therefore, the simple protocol is to investigate, and then establish the relevant facts. Give both sides a fair hearing and then decide on the probabilities.
In this case, the sequence, the director being directed away from his hospital effective July 27, the complainant assuming the functions of director from the same date, and the criminal investigation subsequently being classified NFA, deserves serious scrutiny.
Administrative power must not only be exercised lawfully, but evenly and balanced. Otherwise, an uncomfortable question remains: was due process allowed to determine the consequences, or was it the other way around?
Protect victims, and investigate all allegations thoroughly, and then punish any misconduct if proven. But do not mete out the punishment first and then determine guilt later.
That is not the normal course of justice. That is precisely what natural justice exists to prevent.
Dr Devadas Pathiyil Ramankutty is 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.
