The more we look at the ear-squat fiasco, the more it appears that things are being played out like a sandiwara .
At the recent hearing of the Commission of Inquiry into the Standard Operating Procedure, Approaches or Regulations in the handling of Body Searches in Connection with Arrest and Detention by the Police, we had a solo obstetrician and gynaecologist saying that squats, not ear-squats as practised by the police, are effective at dislodging foreign bodies from the vagina and rectum.
She also clearly stated that performing ear-squats which involved the individual squatting and then getting up again repeatedly to be counter-effective to just squatting alone. Then for some odd reason she mentioned that holding the ears would help the individual keep his/her balance but most people who have undergone such punishment would attest otherwise.
Most gynaecologists would be able to tell you that foreign bodies kept, even unintentionally, in the vagina are difficult to dislodge, what more those kept with the intent to conceal. If such squats can really be effective at dislodging foreign bodies from the vagina, patients won't be turning up at their gynaecologist clinics when 'accidents' occur.
Parading anecdotal tales told by a few police and prison officers and the deputy IGP cannot be equivalent to producing studies or statistics regarding the efficacy of squats or ear-squats. They, at the most, remain anecdoctal tales like the laughable one about a small pill being dislodged after the performance of ear-squats.
Ladies with weak pelvic floor musculature can be trained to hold weights called "vaginal cones", weighing 70gms or more. These patients are also known to be able to perform pelvic floor muscle exercises even when talking and smiling and breathing.
Surely this country must have at least one (if not more) certified urogynaecologist; a trained gynaecologist with sub-specialised training and knowledge and understanding of the musculature of the pelvic floor. Wouldn't such a person be better at telling the members of the commission and us about the intricacies and power of retention of the vagina and rectum?
Did the police look hard enough for such a certified specialist to testify? The way the commission was set up with its limited terms of reference and the few short days it was convened to hear from so few expert witnesses tend to make one suspect that its main naked purpose was to cover up and make certain practices smell nearly as sweet as some roses.
But to those who feel that the commission has uncovered more questions than answers, things do seem to sting instead. It is no point having a commission which will produce answers of which only the government are happy with.
There was another commission which spent a greater deal of time to uncover what was wrong with the PDRM and made numerous recommendations. After more than half a year, have these recommendations been implemented? I remembered that among its 125 recommendations was one to have strip-searches carried out with proper and decent guidelines. If this had been implemented then such "traditional procedures" would be things of the past.
It is obvious that no action has been taken in this direction. In order that we don't have future commissions with narrow terms of reference to look into each future alleged abuse involving the police, the recommended Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission should be set up soonest possible.
Such a properly setup independent commission can then deal with any alleged police misconduct in a comprehensive manner.
