The Kuala Lumpur High Court this morning allowed prosecutors more time to file their justifications for the detention of suspected militants Ahmad Yani Ismail and Abdul Salam Shukri Mohamad under the Internal Security Act.

It set Nov 7 for the preliminary hearing into the habeas corpus applications filed by the duo in July, seeking a declaration that their detention was carried out in an unlawful manner.

This morning, prosecutors asked for the case to be adjourned, saying they needed more time to respond to the claims raised by the applicants in their affidavits.

Ahmad Yani and Abdul Salam were arrested on Dec 29, 2001 on suspicion of being members of the Jemaah Islamiah (JI) militant group.

The police operation against alleged militants operating in the region came on the heels of the Sept 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

However, the applicants claimed in their affidavits that their arrest and detention was illegal, wrong and done in bad faith.

They said they had not done anything which could threaten national security and that the government did not have any proof of wrongdoing on their part.

The government, Home Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and the police were named as respondents.

Lawyers representing the duo have withdrawn their claims against a fourth respondent, Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam).

'Secret organisation'

In his affidavit in reply, the home minister said he first received a report relating to the arrest and detention of Ahmad Yani and Abdul Samad on Jan 25, 2002.

"Based on the investigative reports and information relating to the activities of the two applicants, I was satisfied that they were members of a secret organisation known as Jemaah Islamiah," he said in the document, a copy of which was obtained by malaysiakini .

"Through this secret organisation, the two have been imbued with the spirit of jihadi and martyrdom while they carried out activities in preparation to set up a pan-regional Islamic state comprising Malaysia, Indonesia, and southern Philippines using armed violence."

Abdullah further said he had issued the detention orders for the duo to start on Feb 22, 2002 at the Kamunting Detention Camp in Taiping, Perak.

"I state that the detention orders were issued based on detailed investigative reports and that the information was valid and not political in nature," he said.

Citing Section 16 of the ISA and Article 151(3) of the Federal Constitution, Abdullah said he was unable to reveal the contents of these reports as, to do so, may be detrimental to national interest.

Presence 'unnecessary'

In a related matter, judge Heliliah Mohd Yusof, rejected an application by the applicants' lawyer Edmund Bon for their presence in court during the proceedings.

The judge said she was bound by the Federal Court precedent in the case of Abdul Ghani Haroon, which ruled that the presence of an ISA detainee is not necessary for a habeas corpus application to proceed.

In addition, Heliliah said she did not want to detract from the main application by side-tracking on the application for their presence.

"The detainees' presence is not necessary as long as the complaint is satisfied. (An exception can be made) if the application requires cross-examination, then the detainee should be present," she said.

Although the judge rejected the application, she also did not rule out the possibility that she may reverse her decision later, should circumstances require the detainees to be present in court.

"I wouldn't say that I could make a conditional order (for the detainees to be present), but this issue warrants further scrutiny. I would not make it my final note on it," she told Bon.

"If I dismiss it now, you may want to extract an order at a later date and I would not be able to go back on my word. If you extract an order later, I will see if there are any (circumstances) to justify a different position but at this point, the application is refused."