The arrests of two Internal Security Act (ISA) detainees were correctly done within the confines of the law and it is up to their defence lawyers to prove that the arrests were done with bad intentions, the Shah Alam High Court was told today.

"Our contention is that the burden shifts to Abdul Ghani Haroon and N Gobalakrishnan, the two ISA detainees, to show there was mala fide (bad intention). Moreover, the arrests and the detention were done within the ambit of the ISA.

"This shows that the detentions were done solely for the purposes provided for under the ISA," Senior Federal Counsel Abdul Rasid Sudin told presiding judge Mohd Hishamudin Mohd Yunus when submitting at the habeas corpus applications hearing of Abdul Ghani and Gobalakrishnan.

The families of the two filed the applications two weeks ago, seeking their immediate release after they were detained on April 11 and 10, respectively, under the ISA, which allows for detention without trial.

Habeas corpus is a writ ordering prisoners to be brought before a court or a judge to ascertain whether their detention is lawful.

Access denied

Rasid added that suspicion would not be enough to prove mala fide .

"What the two detainees are trying to say was that there was mala fide but their allegations are only based on mere suspicion," Rasid said.

At this juncture Justice Hishamudin then asked if mala fide had been the case since access by family and lawyers to both detainees were still being denied.

Judge Hishamudin : Isn't it mala fide when access to both detainees by families and lawyers, being a fundamental human right, has been denied for over 40 days by the detaining authority?

Rasid : No. There is no doubt that there are cases that show (the detainees) have the right to access by families and counsel but it is up to the detaining authority to deny access subject to that the fact that they are still conducting investigations.

Judge Hishamudin : Isn't 40 days too long to have the police conduct their investigations?

Rasid : It is up to the police to conduct their investigations. If the investigations can be concluded early, then it is good, but if the investigations are not finished yet, they have the right to deny access.

Rasid then concluded his submission by stating that Inspector-General of Police Norian Mai's press statement a day after the arrests were made could not be evaluated or reviewed by court because it was not exhaustive.

Lead defence counsel R Sivarasa replied that the court still had the power to review and inquire into the allegations made by Norian.

Justice Hishamudin then set May 30 for decision.

No jurisdiction

Last Wednesday, the Federal Court struck down a decision by Justice Hishamudin ordering the police to produce Abdul Ghani and Gobalakrishnan in court for their habeas corpus applications hearing.

A total of 10 opposition leaders and reformasi activists have been detained since April 10 to preempt what Norian described in a press conference as a "militant" attempt to overthrow the government with "bombs, grenade launchers, ball bearings, Molotov cocktails and other weapons".

The habeas corpus applications of Keadilan vice-president Tian Chua, party youth leader Mohd Ezam Mohd Nor, reformasi activist Saari Sungib, social activist-cum-malaysiakini columnist Hishamuddin Rais, and Free Anwar Campaign(Freeanwar.com) webmaster Raja Petra Kamaruddin were thrown out by the Kuala Lumpur High Court on April 25 when Justice Augustine Paul ruled that the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The habeas corpus applications for three other ISA detainees, Keadilan's Dr Badrul Amin Baharom and Lokman Noor Adam and human rights activist Badaruddin Ismail, have been filed in the Shah Alam High Court on May 4, but their lawyers have yet to receive a response from the court registrar's office.