Alarmed by the Federal Court's ruling yesterday that the Internal Security Ministry has no time limit to seek detention orders under preventive laws, a lawyer said the 'sweeping powers' is a threat to those seeking judicial redress for unlawful arrests.

"What is going to happen to all habeas corpus cases? Arguments used in the past to secure release for those detained without charge and trial have been quashed by the highest court in the land," said RR Mahendran when met yesterday.

Habeas corpus is a writ of summons directing the authorities to bring a detainee to a court of law to ascertain whether or not the person's detention is lawful

A three-member panel, including Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, in the case of Lee Kew Sang versus the deputy internal security minister, the Simpang Renggam detention centre and the Malaysian government, gave 'wider discretionary and arbitrary powers' to the government while limiting judicial scrutiny on the executive.

The court held that there was no requirement in the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance Act 1969 (EO) that a detention order must be made within a certain period of the alleged criminal acts.

The others on the panel were Chief Judge of Malaya Siti Norma Yaakob and Judge Abdul Hamid Mohamad.

The 32-page judgment came as a result of an appeal by Lee that the EO used against him was invalid as he was detained almost eight months after a gang fight in which he was alleged to have taken part in.

According to Lee's lawyer Mahendran, the former had no prior criminal record but police suspected his involvement in the skirmish which had resulted in a death.

The order was served on Lee, 47, on Sept 24 over the Feb 5 incident.

Mahendran had earlier submitted to the Federal Court that Deputy Internal Security Minister Noh Omar, who issued the detention order the EO, had not considered criminal prosecution against his client.

In applying for habeas corpus (which was turned-down by the Johor Baru High Court on Sept 9, 2004) the lawyer argued that the detention grounds were "stale and remote in point of law".

Unhealthy precedent

He told malaysiakini that the Federal Court ruling sets an unhealthy precedent which gives rise to arrests of persons who are now stand-up citizens and contributing members of society but may have been suspected of a crime - or for having strong political opinions opposing the government - in the past.

This, he asserted, gives rise to the EO being used more as a political tool.

The Federal Court, in its judgment also referred to and strengthened other preventive laws such as the Internal Security Act 1960 and the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985.

Mahendran, who has a track record of releasing 38 detainees held under preventive laws this year alone, said the judgement gave more authority to these restrictive laws and its provisions of detention without the need to furnish sufficient evidence and without the need to go to trial.

These detention powers are currently defined in Sec 4(1) of the EO where "if the minister is satisfied that with a view to preventing any person from acting in any manner prejudicial to public order...the minister shall make an order directing that person be detained for any period not exceeding two years".

However, the common practice in Malaysia is that such orders are reapplied - consecutively - at the end of the two years leaving many languishing in jails - without trail - indefinitely.

Human rights organisation Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram), in a press statement today, forcefully called for the abolishment of the draconian law. The Royal Police Commission had also, in its recent report, called for the EO's abolishment.

Suaram coordinator S Arutchelvan pointed out that the EO was created "in the first place, after the (racial riots) in May 13 1969. It is obsolete. However, throughout the years, the government has comfortably used this law to detain arbitrarily and without much evidence".

In its judgement, the Federal Court also quoted amendments made to the act in 1989 whereby newly inserted sections 7C and 7D curbed judicial review of the detention order issuance. It submitted that courts needed to observe these amendments with more reverence and consistency.

"The provisions in the sections are clear. The effect of the amendments is that, in a habeas corpus application such as in this case, the detention order may only be challenged on the ground of non-compliance with any procedural requirement and nothing else," the judgment read.

Procedural requirements include detention orders being signed by the minister or deputies, charges are spelt out in the order and the application must be made no later than 60 days of the initial detention period.