The RM83 million civil suit filed by a group of Malaysian human rights activists for wrongful detention during the second international conference on East Timor, held in 1996, will now be heard next March.

"The matter is fixed for hearing from March 6-10, 2006, as these are the earliest dates available in the Kuala Lumpur High Court diary," said M Moganambal, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs.

In 1998, 36 human rights activists filed the suit against the government, then Inspector-General of Police Abdul Rahim Mohd Noor and two senior police officers - the Kuala Lumpur chief police officer Ismail Che Rose and the Dang Wangi OCPD Zainal Abidin Ali - for negligence and wrongful detention.

Among the plaintiffs are current Malaysian Trade Union Congress president Syed Shahir Syed Mohammad, Parti Keadilan Rakyat deputy president Dr Syed Husin Ali, vice-presidents Dr Sanusi Osman and R Sivarasa and information chief Tian Chua and New Era College principal and former parliamentarian Dr Kua Kia Soong.

Malaysiakini editor-in-chief Steven Gan and chief executive officer Premesh Chandran, then journalists at The Sun , are also among the plaintiffs.

Violence at venue

The activists were arrested on the opening day of the Second Asia Pacific Conference on East Timor on Nov 9, 1996. The conference was to discuss human rights abuses in East Timor and its struggle then for independence from Indonesia.

As the conference was about to begin, 400 members of Umno Youth-led Barisan Bertindak Rakyat Malaysia (BBRM) - Malaysia's People's Action Front - stormed the conference venue, broke down the doors and threatened participants.

Police then moved in to arrest the participants, who were held in lock-ups for between one to six days. Forty foreign participants were deported.

In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs said the police had failed to respond immediately to the violence caused by the BBRM members and were therefore negligent in ensuring the plaintiffs' safety.

They are claiming damages for alleged mistreatment by the authorities during the arrest and detention.

The government in its statement of defence alleged that all arrests were bona fide (in good faith) to preserve public order after the participants ignored police orders to disperse.

The police claimed that they had adhered to all criminal code procedures and lock-up rules at all time during the arrest and detention of the plaintiffs.

The case, slated to start on April 18 , was earlier postponed to today as the court wanted witnesses' statements to be served to all parties at least two weeks before the trial starts.