The Kuala Lumpur High Court today rejected an application by the defence team of five Internal Security Act (ISA) detainees that an order be granted to compel the police to allow the lawyers access to the five.

After delivering his ruling on this, Justice Augustine Paul then reserved his judgment for Monday on the habeas corpus application by the five seeking their immediate release from detention.

A habeas corpus writ, if allowed, will order the detainees to be brought before a court or a judge to ascertain if their detention is lawful.

Senior deputy public prosecutor Abdul Gani Patail wrapped up his submission on behalf of the police today. The hearing began on Tuesday.

"I need time to deliberate over the details submitted by both parties," said Paul, before adjourning the hearing.

Five of the seven ISA detainees arrested in Kuala Lumpur last week filed a habeas corpus application last Thursday following their arrest under the ISA, which allows for detention without trial for a minimum of two years following an initial 60-day investigative period.

Similar applications on behalf of two others, who were nabbed outside Kuala Lumpur, were made in the Shah Alam High Court yesterday and will be heard next Tuesday.

The seven reformasi activists detained were Keadilan vice-president Tian Chua, party Youth leaders Mohd Ezam Mohd Nor, N Gobalakrishnan, Abdul Ghani Haroon and Saari Sungib, Free Anwar Campaign (Freeanwar.com) webmaster Raja Petra Raja Kamaruddin and social activist-cum-malaysiakini columnist Hishamuddin Rais.

The seven were arrested on Tuesday and Wednesday for allegedly planning violent street demonstrations and other militant means to topple the government.

'Not clear'

During today's hearing, defence counsel R Sivarasa requested Paul to grant on order directing the police to allow the detainees legal access. The judge refused to do so on the grounds that Sivarasa should have taken up his advice earlier to write a "clearer letter".

"If you make such submissions, you are compelling me to hit you hard in my judgment. I can direct you to write to them (the police). Earlier you rejected my advice. If their reply was strange, I could have interfered," said Paul.

This exchange came about following Gani's submission that the defence was wrong in stating that the police had acted in bad faith by not allowing the lawyers access to the detainees.

Gani said a letter by a police officer to the lawyers was clear in that they (the police) would not allow any legal representatives as investigations were still ongoing.

Paul, however, said that the letter from the police as well the one as from the legal firm seeking permission for legal access were "not clear".

"The letters are vague. Maybe both parties should have stated clearly on the legal access matter," said Paul adding, "Maybe I should make an order asking the police to respond to the claims of legal access."

He then asked Sivarasa to write another letter to the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) clearly stating that he wanted to meet with the detainees as their counsel. Sivarasa, however, rejected this suggestion.

Press statement

Gani in his submission argued that the habeas corpus application by the five was "frivolous" and should be dismissed. He added that the detention was done as a preventive measure and the police were still investigating.

Gani said the court could not evaluate and assess a press statement issued by the Inspector General of Police Norain Mai relating to the arrest and the detention of the seven.

The defence had earlier argued that decided case laws allow the court to evaluate and assess the press statement if it had been disclosed to the public.

They said the court should ask the police to produce evidence to back their claims that the seven had been involved in militant activities to topple the government as alleged in the IGP's press statement.

Gani responded by saying that Norian had not specifically referred to the seven when he mentioned about militant movements undertaken by the reformasi movement.

"All the grounds and reasons stated in the press statement referred to the reformasi movement in general and those reasons can't be used in relation to the arrest and detention of the seven," said Gani.

'No relevance'

He added that Norian should be commended for issuing the statement "to inform the detainees and the public on matters relating to the arrest".

"The law does not require the police to disclose anything but the IGP did so in the interest of the public and for transparency's sake. He gave whatever little he could rather than nothing at all," added Gani.

Gani also submitted that it was wrong for the defence to assert that the police had acted in bad faith by not charging the detainees in court while claiming to have evidence of their alleged militant plans.

"ISA is a preventive measure and the government can detain a person under this emergency law even though there is evidence to prosecute the person in criminal court. Question of criminal prosecution has no relevance to an ISA detention," said the senior deputy public prosecutor.

Correction:

We erroneously reported earlier that Justice Augustine Paul had dismissed the habeas corpus application of the five ISA detainees today. As reported above, he will deliver his judgment on Monday. We apologise for the error.

Previous stories