A special branch police officer yesterday told the Kuala Lumpur High Court that the upheaval caused by the recent Libyan ‘revolution’ is an example why Malaysia should not allow street demonstrations.

“Illegal assemblies could cause chaos like the one in Libya where the leader (Muammar Gaddafi) was killed,” DSP Mohd Ariff Ariffin told the court under cross-examination.

Mohd Ariff is a defence witness in the civil suit brought by five former Internal Security Act (ISA) detainees seeking a court declaration that Section 8 and 73 of the law are unconstitutional, that their detention was illegal and, unspecified damages.

The civil suit names the federal government, then home minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, and then inspector general of police Norian Mai as defendants.

Norian is also being sued for allegedly defaming the ex-detainees by implying that they were trying to topple the government by using force.

The plaintiffs in the suit are Saari Sungib, Hishamuddin Rais, Badarudin Ismail, Badrulamin Baharom and Chua Tian Chang, popularly known as Tian Chua.

The plaintiffs were imprisoned for being “prejudicial to public order” and Mohd Ariff was asked to explain the term and how illegal assemblies could threaten public order.

Mohd Ariff had led a team of three officers to interrogate Saari beginning Apr 11, 2001, the day after he was arrested during a pre-emptive police swoop on organisers of the Black 14 rally, which was to be held on April 14.

The police operation resulted in 10 activists being put under ISA detention.

Barrage of questions

The plaintiffs’ counsel Razlan Hadri Zulkifli later established that Mohd Ariff had no knowledge of the Libyan ‘revolution’ that took place last year while he was interrogating Saari in 2001.

Razlan had earlier questioned Mohd Ariff if he knew that Libya did not hold any elections to which Mohd Ariff answered in the positive.

After a rapid barrage of questions, Mohd Ariff conceded that Libya was not a good example because the country was previously a dictatorship whereas Malaysia is a democracy that regularly holds elections.

In trying to stay consistent with his earlier argument, Mohd Ariff raised the issue of the May 13, 1969, race riots which erupted after street processions were held in the country.

Razlan: “Ah, let’s talk about May 13... May 13 was due to a procession about racial issues, right?”

Mohd Ariff: “Yes.”

Razlan: “Did Saari raise any racial issues?”

Mohd Ariff: “No.”

Razlan: “Did the illegal assembly (on Nov 5, 2000) at Jalan Kebun (where Saari was an organiser) raise any racial issues?”

Mohd Ariff: “No.”

Razlan: “What about the Black 14 rally (also organised by Saari)? No racial elements right?”

Mohd Ariff then conceded that no racial issues were raised, but said during re-examination by Senior Federal Counsel Iznan Ishak that the speeches made during the rally touched on former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim’s sacking from the government instead.

Earlier during the examination-in-chief, Izyan had read out many allegations made by Saari during his testimony, and each was met with denials from Mohd Ariff.

Defamatory statements

These included turning up the air conditioning in the interrogation room making it unbearably cold for Saari; asserting that it was his “basic right” to smoke in the interrogation room when Saari complained; and slamming a desk while saying that Saari would spend the rest of his life in detention.

He also denied making defamatory statements against opposition leaders like Anwar is a CIA agent and had a harem of 20 to 30 women; that Anwar’s father was a womaniser; and that Hishamuddin had just woken up from a coma thinking that it was the 1970s.

Mohd Ariff  during re-examination, described his interrogation being akin to “a reporter interviewing somebody,” and that Saari was free to volunteer or withhold information.

He added that he still visited Saari after the interrogations were over, and had been transferred to a special detention facility while awaiting a Home Ministry's decision on whether or not to release him.

“Just for chit-chats, so that he did not sit alone in the lock-up all day long,” Mohd Ariff said, adding that he may have also played chess with Saari but was not sure.

During cross-examination earlier, however, Mohd Ariff seemed defensive when answering Razlan's questions on how the interrogation was documented.

He repeatedly interrupted Razlan’s question on whether he took handwritten notes or typed it directly into a laptop, until Razlan raised his voice and shouted: “Listen to my question!”

Mohd Ariff revealed that he had taken notes during the interrogation, and later typed it into a laptop before destroying the notes.

Once the final report had been submitted to Saari’s case file officer, the laptop’s files were deleted before being returned to his office administrative staff.

When asked, he said that he knew of no law that allowed him to do so.

Mohd Ariff explained during re-examination that the notes were a draft document, but the contents were secret. In addition, the laptop was handed over to another officer.

The dispute on Wednesday over five heavily redacted documents marked “secret” remains unresolved.

However, lawyers from both parties agreed to allow the hearing to continue, and the plaintiffs' lawyers would argue on the admissibility of the documents during the conclusion of the trial.