Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

The Bar Council is deeply concerned with the continuing use by the authorities of the Internal Security Act 1960 to detain at least 67 alleged members of the Al-Ma’unah organisation in connection with the violence perpetrated in Sauk.

The Bar Council would point out that it does not condone any acts of violence or threats to life and property by any party and is saddened that the Sauk incident has caused the loss of at least three lives including two of our security forces. The parties responsible for these crimes must be held responsible and punished through the judicial process.

Be that as it may, the Council has always taken the view that the Internal Security Act is a law that is repugnant to the protection of basic civil and political rights. The Act removes wholesale vital protections of due process and access to counsel which are provided for in the Federal Constitution. The premise of national security repeatedly proferred to justify the use of the Act, has in our view, no foundation. There are a plethora of laws and regulations which can be invoked by the authorities for the protection of public order, life and property. The use of the Internal Security Act in these circumstances cannot be justified.

Neither can the Act be invoked in the name of furthering police investigations. There exist sufficient provisions in law for such purposes with safeguards of due process.

We would therefore urge the authorities to immediately charge those detained who are believed to be responsible for the crimes committed and release those against whom the police have no evidence.

We note also that the investigating police have secured a second remand order from the Magistrates Court for 27 of those originally detained under section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code ( CPC ). The basis of the second remand order was purportedly a second police report at a different police station alleging a different offence from that which was alleged in the first remand application. It is not clear whether the Magistrate who issued the second remand order was aware of the first remand period. Nonetheless, such repeated extensions of the statutory 14 day period provided in law are, in our view, an abuse of the investigative provisions of the CPC. The suspects may have committed more that one offence under the law, but it was obvious to all and sundry that there was only one incident or transaction in which the offences arose. The police were therefore limited to 14 days under the law for their investigation. Any other interpretation of section 117 would lead to the danger of suspects being held for extensive periods in remand based on repeated reports being filed by different police stations. We would urge Magistrates attending to remand applications to be vigilant about previous remands. Police officers making such remand applications should assist the court fully about the suspect’s immediate previous remands.

The Bar Council takes this opportunity to once again call for the immediate repeal of the Internal Security Act. This country which we dearly love, cherish and protect is mature enough to reject the anachronistic crutches of the colonial and pre-democratic past.

Dated this 5th of August 2000.

HAJI SULAIMAN ABDULLAH
PENGERUSI
MAJLIS PEGUAM

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed