The Federal Court today ruled that High Court judge Augustine Paul did not act in bias in dismissing the habeas corpus applications of five Keadilan and reformasi activists detained under the Internal Security Act.

Chief Justice Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah said that there was no real likelihood of bias by justice Paul when he had heard the application of the five in April this year.

The five applicants were Keadilan leaders Chua Tian Chang (Tian Chua), Mohamed Ezam Mohd Nor, Saari Sungib, FreeAnwar.com webmaster Raja Petra Kamaruddin and malaysiakini -cum-film-maker Hishamuddin Rais.

Their defence counsel Malik Imtiaz Sarwar on Monday had submitted that the impartiality of justice Paul was questionable as he also presided over former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim's corruption case where the verdict delivered on Sept 14, 1999 has been commemorated and remembered as Black 14 by Keadilan members and reformasi supporters annually.

"We concede that the only common factor between the five and the Black 14 judgment is that the five were detained by the police for organising demonstrations, one of which was on April 14 2001," said Dzaiddin in his six-page judgment.

"However, we do not think that such circumstances does give rise to bias on the judge's part," he said. The other four judges on the panel concurred with him.

Police allegations

The five were part of a ISA swoop that began on April 10 based on police allegations that they were involved in a militant attempt by way of mass demonstrations to overthrow the government.

All save Raja Petra have been sent to the Kamunting detention centre in early June under a two-year detention order signed by Home Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

The five have named Inspector-General of Police Norian Mai as respondent and he is represented by senior deputy public prosecutor Azahar Mohamad and deputy public prosecutors Mohd Yusof Zainal Abideen, Mary Lim Thian Suan and Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah.

Their applications at the High Court was dismissed by Paul on April 25 on the ground that their arrests and detentions were lawful.

After making the ruling, the five-man bench continued to hear the appeal by the five with another defence counsel Christopher Leong submitting that the use of the ISA on the five warranted an abuse of the federal constitution as well as the ISA.

"It is inconceivable that Parliament ever intended the ISA to be used against the reformasi movement. There was no such thing as the reformasi movement at the time Parliament deliberated on and subsequently passed the ISA," Leong said.

Fundamental liberties

"As the mind of Parliament was never addressed to any other acts or threats by any other substantial body of persons, Parliament never gave its consent and cannot be deemed to so have so consented in 1960 to the misuse of the ISA in this manner," Leong.

The Internal Security Act was framed in 1960 specifically with the communist insurgency in mind.

Leong called on the apex court to give the fundamental liberties enshrined the federal constitution a wide and liberal interpretation.

"On the other hand, any provisions in the constitution or any law which sought to restrict such fundamental liberties and rights must be given a narrow and restricted interpretation," he said.

The five are also represented by Sulaiman Abdullah, R Sivarasa and M Moganambal.

The Bar Council which is holding a watching brief is represented by its deputy chairman Roy Rajasingham.

The rest of the five-member panel consists of Chief Judge of the High Courts of Malaya Wan Adnan Wan Ismail, Chief Judge of the High Courts of Sabah and Sarawak Steve Shim Lip Kiong, Federal Court judges Abdul Malek Ahmad and Siti Norma Yaakob.

The appeal continues tomorrow .