The hearing into the RM83 million 'Apcet II' suit filed by a group of local activists and journalists against the government was adjourned today after the judge told the government's counsel to be better prepared for the case.

The suit, which was fixed for hearing today and tomorrow, continued in the Kuala Lumpur High Court with the testimony from the plaintiffs' sixth witness, lawyer-politician R Sivarasa, 50, who was involved in the organising of the conference at the time. He was detained for six days in the aftermath of the disruption of the conference.

However, the hearing did not make much headway today following a lengthy argument by the government lawyers who objected Sivarasa's witness statement.

Justice Wan Adnan Muhamad had to repeatedly remind the team of federal counsel to prove their case and stop with their objections.

Drama in court

The drama unfolded when Federal Counsel Morhaji Selamat, at the outset of his cross-examination, objected Sivarasa's witness statement on the grounds that it was not specific enough.

The counsel argued that the statement was not done in accordance with the Evidence Act.

According to Morhaji, Sivarasa should provided "direct evidence" in his witness statement and not merely refer to the testimonies from the previous witnesses on what had happened when the Umno Youth-led mob broke into the conference hall.

Wan Adnan then reminded Morhaji that there was a set of common facts that have been agreed upon by both sides on this and that the questioning line should focus on the basis of the claims in the multi-million suit.

"Don't you understand we are trying to keep the proceedings short? Do you want the witnesses to repeat the same story for four, five times? Those are the facts that have been adopted. What are the claims in the suit? They want compensation over the unlawful detention," said the judge.

Appearing dissatisfied, Morhaji continued arguing over his objection for about 30-minutes, culminating in him remarking to the court: "We don't like the format how it (witness statement) was done."

To this, the judge replied: "If the sky is blue, do you need to produce evidence to say the sky is blue?"

Irrelevant questioning

Morhaji finally relented and gave way to his colleague Senior Federal Counsel Iznan Ishak to take over the cross-examination. And soon enough, another 'advice' from the judge ensued.

It took place when Iznan tried to question Sivarasa over the meeting between the organisers with then deputy home minister Megat Junid Megat Ayob, who had asked for the conference to be cancelled.

"The issue here is whether the detention was done lawfully. Is there any relevance to whether Megat Junid gave his blessings for the conference? Even if he said the conference shouldn't proceed, does that mean the conference is unlawful from the perspective of the law?" asked the judge.

"If there is no effect to the case, why should you ask the question?" Wan Adnan added.

Iznan replied that he posed that question because Sivarasa was one of the three organising committee members that had gone to meet Megat Junid.

" Tak apa (doesn't matter), you don't get me... There are certain questions which don't carry weight on your side, (like) the blessing of the (deputy) minister. Does it have any bearing on whether their detention was lawful or not? If there is bearing, then you ask," Wan Adnan remarked.

'Go back and study'

Although Iznan appeared to have taken in the judge's advise, he was however hesitant to follow a new line of questioning.

"Did you study the witness statement thoroughly? You go back and study (the witness statement) properly and then zoom in to the issue. You continue the cross-examination tomorrow," said the judge, deciding to adjourn the matter to continue tomorrow.

Apart from Iznan and Morhaji, Senior Federal Counsel Chandra Devi also appeared for the respondents while the plaintiffs' legal team consisted of Ranjit Singh, Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, M Moganambal, Abdul Rashid Ismail, Gregory Ling and Amelly Kok.

Opposition politician Saifuddin Nasution Ismail - then with Umno Youth and had led the mob - is expected to testify as a plaintiffs' witness tomorrow. There are three others plaintiffs' witnesses slated to take the stand.

On Nov 9, 1996, over 100 people - including 10 journalists - were arrested on the opening day of the Second Asia Pacific Conference on East Timor (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 of 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.

High-profile plaintiffs

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

Online daily 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 OCPD Zainal Abidin Ali - as respondents.