KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 24 (Bernama) -- Five Internal Security Act (ISA) detainees submitted in the High Court here today that their detention orders issued by the Internal Security Minister did not comply with the procedural requirements of the act.
Lead counsel Karpal Singh, for the five applicants who are seeking writs of habeas corpus to secure their release, said there was non-compliance on the part of the minister, the first respondent, because he had issued the detention orders under section 8(1) without effecting an arrest under section 73(1) of the act.
"We submit that the minister is bound to invoke the provisions of section 73 before he can make an order under section 8(1) of the act," Karpal Singh.
He said the minister did not apply the law in a just manner whereby the applicants had been deprived of an enquiry under section 73 which provides for a period not exceeding 60 days for investigations and the right to put up their defence before the minister could make an order.
Karpal submitted further that the detention order which was served on one of the applicants, M. Manoharan, when he was picked on Dec 13, clearly mentioned that the applicant was being arrested.
"Section 8(1) does not have any provisions for arrest. It only confers power on the minister to make an order of detention," he added.
Karpal Singh was representing lawyers P. Utthayakumar, 46, M.Manoharan, 46, V. Ganabatirau, R. Kenghadharan, 40 and former bank officer K. Vasantha Kumar, 34, who claimed that their detention was unlawful because the grounds of detention stated in the orders were vague.
The group was detained on Dec 13 for alleged involvement in organising an illegal gathering here on Dec 25 and for making seditious statements against the government.
Earlier Karpal told the court that Manoharan's case would be a test case and the decision would have a bearing on the other applicants.
Another counsel, Gobind Singh Deo, submitted that the second respondent, the superintendent of the Detention Camp in Taiping, also failed to comply with the procedural requirement by addressing the applicants' representations against the detention orders to the chairman of the ISA Advisory Board.
He said the representations should have been addressed to the board, not to any individual because both are different entities.
He submitted that section 8(1) of ISA allowed the minister to issue detention orders in cases involving national security but in this case the grounds stated for the detention were very vague.
"It's a complete abuse of the law. The group was making allegations against the Umno-led government and it had nothing to do with national security," he added.
He argued that one of the grounds, which stated that the group had links with outsiders including the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), was senseless, vague and not true.
Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, for both respondents, submitted that the minister had complied with all the provisions of the law.
Police officers who served the detention orders had informed the applicants of their rights to make representations against the detention orders, he said.
"Officers had informed them that if they desired to make representations to the advisory board, they must complete the required particulars in a form to enable it to be forwarded to the secretary within 14 days from the date of the service of the order," he said.
Abdul Gani said it was not true that investigations against the five were not completed when the detention orders were issued.
The investigation papers against them were completed and the minister had not only relied on the police but also acted based on his own personal knowledge and other sources, he added.
He disagreed with the applicants' counsel that the grounds of detention were vague, saying that the group had carried out activities which were very detrimental to national security.
Abdul Gani will continue his submission before Judicial Commissioner Zainal Azman Abdul Aziz tomorrow.
PEOPLE'S POWER
No comments:
Post a Comment