FAC News - Tuesday, February 26, 2002 3:46 PM

THE ISA HABEAS CORPUS APPEAL HEARING – Day 2 – Judge and prosecution debates the ISA

The spectator’s gallery at the Kuala Lumpur Federal Court was entertained to a debate between the judge and the prosecution at the close of the second day of the hearing to consider the appeal by four Internal Security Act (ISA) detainees and one ex-detainee that their arrest be declared illegal.

The five – National Justice Party Youth Leader Ezam Mohd Nor, Saari Sungib, Tian Chua, Hishamuddin Rais and FAC Director Raja Petra Kamarudin, who has since been released – are appealing the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s decision to set aside their application for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

The prosecution had spent a good part of the morning trying to argue just one point – that ISA detainees need not be told why they are being arrested other than that the government "has reason to believe they are a threat to national security".

The prosecution went round and round leading the court in circles citing cases all over the world that included cases in India and South Africa. Clearly the prosecution’s argument was going nowhere prompting the judge to interject and ask the prosecution what it was trying to say.

Further explanations by the prosecution just ended up confusing the court further. The court then adjourned for the day to allow the prosecution to state their arguments in writing so that it does not, as the judge said, "go round and round".

The prosecution was trying to explain to the court that ISA detainees need not be told of the grounds of their arrest other than the reason for their arrest. The court wanted to know what the difference between the two were as "grounds" and "reasons" meant the same thing.

The prosecution replied that "grounds" are details of the arrest while "reason" is why they were arrested – which is that they are a threat to national security.

The court then pointed out that under the Act detainees must be told why they are being arrested. The prosecution agreed but said that they need not be told immediately when they are arrested. They can be told later, said the prosecution.

The court then asked when the detainees would be told why they were arrested and the prosecution replied when they are sent for further detention – which would be basically after the 60 days initial detention.

The court wanted to know whether this was the right thing to do and the prosecution replied maybe not but this is what the law provides for. The main issue is not what is right or wrong but what the law stipulates.

Clearly the court was not amused with this line of argument as demonstrated on the judges’ faces.