The judge in the RM83 million 'Apcet II' civil suit corrected federal counsel Mohaji Selamat several times for phrasing questions poorly during the cross examination of a witness.

At the continuation of the hearing at the Kuala Lumpur High Court in Wisma Denmark today, Justice Wan Adnan Muhamad had to get Mohaji to clarify his questions when cross-examining the fifth witness labour activist Irene Xavier, 55 ( photo ).

It started when Mohaji asked Xavier if she had contacted the media to attend the Second Asia Pacific Conference on East Timor (Apcet II) in 1996.

Mohaji: Would you agree that on that day, you called the media to go for the conference?

Xavier: No, I disagree.

Wan Adnan (to Mohaji): Which media are you asking about? Are you talking about the print media? Do you know which media was present on that day?

Mohaji: I don't know. I'm not sure.

Wan Adnan: If you're not sure, how can you ask that question?

Later, Mohaji was criticised for phrasing questions that did not allow Xavier to answer properly.

Mohaji: My suggestion was that (journalist) Ong Ju Lin was in the hall when the police arrived? Would you agree?

Xavier: I don't know.

Wan Adnan (to Mohaji): You can't always say you're suggesting something and ask someone to answer yes or no. Phrase your questions properly. Saying that she disagrees is different from saying she doesn't know.

In another instance, Mohaji was ticked off when he quizzed Xavier, who was in the organising committee, whether the committee had asked the police to arrest the mob.

Mohaji: Did the committee ask the police to arrest the mob members?

Xavier: I don't know.

Wan Adnan (to Mohaji): Is this a fair question? There are many other members in the committee, how would she know? She cannot speak for their actions. What answer were you expecting? That the entire committee shouted in chorus, "Arrest the mob?" when the police were there? You must be fair.

Wan Adnan who had warned Mohaji numerous times yesterday to stick to relevant arguments and precise questions appeared relieved when the federal counsel asked his final question.

"This must be the jackpot question. I've been waiting to hear the words 'final question' (from Mohaji) for the longest time," he said with a broad grin.

'Wrongful detention'

The suit was filed by a group of 32 local activists and journalists represented by Malik Imtiaz Sarwar and M Moganambal.

Senior federal counsel Chandra Devi represented the defendants.

On Nov 9, 1996, over 100 people - including 10 journalists - were arrested on the opening day of Apcet II, held to discuss human rights abuses in East Timor and its struggle for independence from Indonesia.

As the conference was about to begin, 400 members from the Umno Youth-led Barisan Bertindak Rakyat Malaysia, or Malaysia's People's Action Front, broke down the doors to the conference halls, threw chairs and verbally and physically abused the participants.

Police then moved in to arrest the participants who were detained between one and six days, while 40 foreign participants were deported. The activists filed their suit to claim damages for wrongful detention and police negligence in discharging statutory duties to disperse the mob.

Among the plaintiffs are Malaysian Trades Union Congress president Syed Shahir Syed Mohammad, Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) deputy president Dr Syed Husin Ali, PKR vice-president R Sivarasa, Parti Sosialis Malaysia pro-tem president Dr Nasir Hashim and New Era College principal Dr Kua Kia Soong.

Malaysiakini chief executive officer Premesh Chandran and editor-in-chief Steven Gan, both then journalists at The Sun , are also among the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs have named the government, then inspector general of police Abdul Rahim Mohd Noor and two senior police officers - then Kuala Lumpur chief police officer Ismail Che Rose and then Dang Wangi district police chief Zainal Abidin Ali - as respondents.

The hearing continues on June 20 and 21.

Previous reports - The Apcet II trial