The Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land in Malaysia and any law passed by the Parliament which is inconsistent shall be null and void to the extent of the inconsistency involved. Under Article 5(1), which guarantees the fundamental liberty of a person that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.

The meaning of life here is more than just what it appear to mean literally, it means the right of a person to do his or her vocation without fear or harassment by the authority for expressing his views as required in his line of work irregardless of his faith, beliefs or creed as long as the questioning of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III, Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution kept at bay.

Reiterating the fact that in the event a person is arrested by the authorities, under Article (3) he or she shall be informed the grounds of the arrest and to seek redress the person shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner.

Furthermore, when a person is arrested and may be detained for longer period, he or she shall be without unreasonable delay, and in any case within twenty four (24) hours which excludes travel time for any necessary journey must be produced before a magistrate or judge.

These rights are enshrined in Article (4) of the Federal Constitution but in lieu of the recent case where an ex-journalist, Sidek Kamiso, was arrested in the wee hours doesn’t augur well for the rule of law in the country.

The constitution clearly states a detainee (read with arrest warrant) shall be without unreasonable delay brought upon magistrate or judge - forced to travel from his residence in Selangor all the way to Johor for his statement to be recorded?

I am curious with the modus operandi of the police personnel who have acted unconventionally by barging in his home eg jumping over the fence and detaining him. Thus creating a legal issue of trespassing under Tort law as well liable under lawsuit for punitive damages. Also, creating an atmosphere of fear akin to phobia in the minds of the impressionable young kids who were reported to present in the house when the incident occurred.

In recent times where we read news of daring burglars ransacking residential houses in broad daylight, this does bode well for the public’s confidence in regards to men in uniform at large acting in this manner at an unearthly hours of the day.

Furthermore, to add salt to the wound- even some unscrupulous ones in the force has taken this route for their personal enrichment where cases policemen reported involving in crime such as rape, robbery and bribery highlighted by the mass media in Malaysia. Nevertheless, the majority of the right thinking and duty-bound honest men in uniform making continued sacrifices for a safer country eclipsed by these rogue actions.

According to inspector-general of police (IGP) Khalid Abu Bakar in a recent press statement, the National Security Council Act won’t be used against the terrorists or militants since there are laws which are adequate in the country such as Prevention of Terrorism Act (Pota) 2015 and Security Measures (Special Offenses) 2012 (Sosma). Pray tell us does this National Security Act already in force in lieu of this incident?

Would rule of law transform into rule by law?

We, the citizens of this country are deeply disturbed with the vagueness for the jurisdiction of this new law, and some are saying we are transcending into a police state. Would the rule of law transform into rule by law in Malaysia? Or are we descending into the paths of nations like North Korea?

Our IGP based on my preassumption to be an expert in French criminal law where recently he had interpreted our Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) Act 593 involving MyWatch chair, R Sri Sanjeevan’s case.

In accordance to the French legal system and many of its former colonies, they have a legal system which follows civil law unlike Commonwealth countries which modeled after the English common law whereas the person is guilty until they prove their innocence in a court of law. If you are charged with a crime in France you are guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof is placed on the defendant, who must demonstrate that he or she is innocent.

Sidek Kamiso was already assumed to be guilty in the manner he was taken in by the authorities and the due process of the law was not adhered to and was released after when the judge saw a gross violation of personal liberties. At least for now, we can say the rule of law in Malaysia is still intact or do we?