Tuesday, 16-Oct-2001 3:41 PM

Federal Court to rule tomorrow on the ISA detainees' appeal

Tomorrow, the Kuala Lumpur Federal Court will make its ruling on the Petition of Appeal filed by five of the ten opposition leaders and Reformasi activists arrested under Malaysia’s infamous and dreaded Internal Security Act (ISA). This is being seen as a landmark case, for its outcome will determine the future of the ISA that currently gives the police wide powers of arrest and indefinite detention without trial, plus detention before any crime is actually committed - even in the absence of evidence.

On 10 April 2001, three National Justice Party (keADILan) leaders and one political activist – Tian Chua, Hishamuddin Rais, Saari Sungib and Ezam Mohd Noor - were arrested (in that order) under The following day, Raja Petra Kamarudin, the Director of the Free Anwar Campaign, was added to the list of ISA detainees.

And what do all these people have in common? All are known Anwar Ibrahim supporters and Reformasi activists.

Over the next two weeks, five more were rounded up – N. Gobalakrishnan, Abdul Ghani Haroon, Lokman Noor Adam, Badaruddin Ismail and Dr Badrulamin Bahron.

On 25 April 2001, families of the first five arrested on 10 and 11 April filed Writs of Habeas Corpus in the Kuala Lumpur High Court seeking to get their arrest declared illegal. The High Court, however, ruled their arrest as valid and that the police had not acted in bad faith (Mala Fide) as claimed by the families in their Writs.

The families of the five, one of whom (Raja Petra) has since been released, then filed Petitions of Appeal on 17 May 2001. In their Petitions, which were later supported by Affidavits signed by all ten ISA detainees, they revealed that their interrogation had nothing to do with the reason of the arrest announced by the Inspector General of Police (IGP) at a press conference a few days after the arrest.

In the said press conference, the IGP had announced that the ten had planned to bring in bombs, guns, grenade launchers, and much more, to create chaos during the planned 14 April 2001 or “Black 14” demonstration. But they were never asked about any of this during their interrogation claimed the detainees.

Furthermore, they were being detained incommunicado and were being denied legal representation though Article 5.3 of the Federal Constitution clearly guarantees every Malaysian this right.

On Monday, 15 October 2001, the Kuala Lumpur Federal Court was told that the ISA detainees were arrested because of their alleged involvement in the Reformasi Movement. According to the police, the detainees had planned to hold a demonstration on 14 April 2001 called “Black 14”. April 14 was the second anniversary of Anwar Ibrahim’s sentencing in the first (corruption) trial. The Judge who had sentenced Anwar was Augustine Paul.

The Federal Court was further told that, since the High Court Judge hearing the ISA detainees’ Writ of Habeas Corpus application was the same Judge in the Anwar trial, Augustine Paul, he should have recused from hearing the application.

Those arrested under the ISA, and now seeking to get their arrest declared null, were aligned to Anwar Ibrahim and were associated with the Reformasi Movement, which is basically a movement in support of Anwar Ibrahim, argued the defence. And the planned “Black 14” demonstration was a demonstration in protest of this verdict against Anwar.

Therefore, “Black 14” could be viewed as a protest against the Judge and the Judge could be perceived as having a conflict of interest in the case. So he should not have heard the case in the first place.
The Judge could also be perceived as anti-Reformasi because of his involvement in the Anwar Ibrahim trial and, by hearing the case against the five ISA detainees, this could mean they would not be getting a fair hearing.

The Kuala Lumpur Federal Court adjourned after hearing the arguments from both the defence and prosecution and will make its decision tomorrow whether the decision of the High Court could be considered defective due to the Judge’s alleged conflict of interest.

The Chief Justice, Tan Sri Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah, sat with four other Judges, Tan Sri Datuk Steve Shim Lip Kiong, Tan Sri Dato Wan Adnan Wan Ismail, Dato Hj Malek Hj Daud, and Dato Siti Norma Yaakob.

The defence was led by Counsel Haji Sulaiman Abdullah and supported by Sivarasa Rasiah, Christopher Leong, Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, and Moganambal Murugappan.