Friday 29 Mar 2024
By
main news image

(April 10): Three lawyer groups have urged Putrajaya to withdraw the tabling the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (Pota) in Dewan Negara.

Malaysian Bar president Steven Thiru, Sabah Law Association president Datuk GBB Nandy@Gaanesh and Advocates’ Association of Sarawak president Leonard Shim said the introduction of the law was an attempt to revive detention without trial.

Furthermore, they said it was a law that allowed for repeated renewals of detention and deny rights of suspected persons to due process of the law.

"Pota is clearly an attempt by the government to resurrect the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA), Restricted Residence Act 1933, Banishment Act 1959, and Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969," they said in a joint statement today.

Dewan Rakyat earlier this week passed the bill and the next stage is for Dewan Negara to debate and approve the legislation before Royal assent was obtained.

The law has to be gazetted before the home minister picks a date for it to come into force.

They said Pota was unclear in its scope in as much as it was directed at an ill-defined group of persons.

The three said it was purportedly directed at persons who were “engaged in the commission or support of terrorist acts involving listed terrorist organisations in a foreign country”.

"However, words such as 'engaged', 'commission', 'support' and 'involving' have not been defined in Pota. Thus, the reach of the legislation is extremely wide and lends itself to abuse,” they added.

The trio said it could not be conveniently seen as simply targeting “terrorists”.

"We have seen how the ISA, which had been meant to deal with the communist insurgency, was used to stifle political dissent and imprison political opponents."

The three said they were also very troubled by the encroachment into judicial discretion in criminal matters.

Under Pota, a person can initially be remanded for investigative detention for a maximum of 60 days.

A magistrate has no discretion to refuse a request for remand, and is reduced to rubber-stamping requests by the police and public prosecutor.

Likewise, a Sessions Court judge has no discretion to refuse any application by the public prosecutor to order that an accused person be attached with an electronic monitoring device.

"Discretionary powers that exist to enable the judiciary to confront the excesses of the executive are now effectively extinguished," they said.

Further, there is no provision for the person remanded to be informed of the grounds of arrest, or is there any guarantee that legal representation will be allowed.

Pota, they said also gave draconian powers to the inquiry officer to procure evidence and the normal rules of evidence and criminal procedure were excluded.

They also expressed concern whether Pota board members, who decided on detention and restriction orders were independent, since they were appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

The three said the fight against terrorism did not lie in oppressive laws but the ability to detect, gather evidence, investigate and deal with the threat of terrorism in a holistic manner.

"We are aware of the evolving threat of global terrorism but maintain that the war on terrorism must be won without compromising the rule of law, human rights and principles of natural justice," they added. – The Malaysian Insider

      Print
      Text Size
      Share