FAC News - Thursday, February 28, 2002 4:43 PM

THE ISA HABEAS CORPUS APPEAL HEARING – Final Day –ISA detainees do not lose their right to legal counsel

Earlier in the hearing, the prosecution argued that, under the Internal Security Act (ISA), detainees lose their right to legal counsel. The prosecution admitted that this goes against the Constitution and added that "it is nobody’s fault we have such a law, but this is the law."

The prosecution said that ISA detainees are granted access to legal counsel but this right only exists at the representation before the Advisory Board, which is after the initial 60 days detention period.

Therefore, during the initial 60 days detention period, during which the interrogation of the detainees is done, legal counsel is "temporary suspended". Once the interrogation is over and the detainees are sent for further detention at the Kamunting Detention Center, only then will they be allowed access to legal counsel.

In the final day of the Habeas Corpus appeal hearing today, the Kuala Lumpur Federal Court was told this is not so.

"We submit that this tantamount to a complete removal of Article 5 rights from the Appellant," replied the defence.

"Article 5(2) provides the fundamental right to challenge the detention in the High Court. We ask, with respect, how can this right be exercised meaningfully if the detainees is denied access to legal counsel during the entire 60 days investigation period?"

The defence added that the court should have regard to international standards when deciding the extent of fundamental liberties under the Constitution.

"The argument is also made that the Lock-Up Rules 22 and 23 and Rule 81(5) ISA Detained Persons Rules 1960 are permissible restrictions in the right of access to counsel," argued the defence.

"Rules 22 and 23 of the Lock-Up Rules are not a restriction on the right to access to counsel provided under Article 5(3) of the Federal Constitution. They provide for such a right to be exercised."

"There is nothing in the language of these rules to show they do not conform to the Constitution and international standards."