Parti Kedilan Rakyat (Keadilan) has protested over the decision of the Kuala Lumpur magistrate's court to impose a travel restriction the party's women's section deputy leader and Tenaganita head Irene Fernandez.

The court rejected her application for the return of her passport to enable her to attend two expert group meetings in the United States and Canada on human rights and aids issues respectively.

Objecting to the application, the prosecution argued that she would "probably tarnish the image of the country" if she is allowed to go abroad.

Fernandez was convicted last month of publishing 'false news', at the end of a seven-year trial, but has since obtained bail and stay of execution pending disposal of her appeal against the conviction and 12-month jail sentence.

She was required to post bail of RM3,000 and surrender her passport as part of the bail conditions.

In a joint statement today, party president Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, and her deputy Dr Syed Husin Ali noted that Fernandez's passport had been surrendered to the court when the trial began.

"But since then, she applied and was allowed to use her passport to travel overseas 42 times. Now the court has disallowed permission on the ground that she might tarnish Malaysia's reputation. But why punish her on mere speculation or suspicion?" they asked.

By making such decision, they said, the judiciary is inviting adverse comments and criticism from NGOs locally and abroad.

"It is this that will indeed tarnish Malaysia's good name," they added.

'Act fairly'

Wan Azizah and Syed Husin said it was most unfortunate that this has happened just a few days after Abdullah Ahmad Badawi assumed duty as the new prime minister from Nov 1.

"We urge the court to reconsider its decision. (Return the passport to) Fernandez and give her the right and freedom to travel," they said.

"If Fernandez does anything against the laws of the country, then the authorities can always take action in a fair and just manner."

In her press statement yesterday, Fernandez said, the court did not state the reasons for rejecting her application beyond accepting the prosecution's argument.

She contended that the prosecution's affidavit to the court was flawed as it did not produce any evidence on how her actions would offend the country.