Verdict In Hindraf Leaders' Appeal Deferred

PUTRAJAYA, March 11 (Bernama) -- The Federal Court today deferred judgment in the appeal brought by five leaders of the banned Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) in their second bid for freedom from Internal Security Act (ISA) detention.

Justices Datuk Nik Hashim Nik Ab Rahman, Datuk Seri S.Augustine Paul and Datuk Hashim Yusoff reserved judgment to a date to be fixed to consider the submissions forwarded by Karpal Singh, counsel for the five, and Solicitor-General II Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden.

R. Kengadharan, 42; M. Manoharan, 48; V. Ganabatirau, 36; P.Uthayakumar, 47, and K. Vasantha Kumar, 36, filed this second joint application at the Ipoh High Court on May 30 last year after a similar application was dismissed by the High Court and Federal Court.

Their first application was filed at the Kuala Lumpur High Court on Dec 26 2007 after they were arrested. They failed to secure their release as both the High Court and Federal Court ordered that they remain in the Kamunting Detention Centre.

Uthayakumar, a diabetic, has also filed a separate habeas corpus application on grounds of medical negligence but it was also rejected by the High Court and Federal Court. His appeal was thrown out by the Federal Court yesterday on technical grounds for failure to comply with the Rules of the Federal Court to file the petition of appeal.

Meanwhile, Manoharan filed a separate habeas corpus application to challenge the validity of the detention order under Section 8 (1) of the ISA on Aug 8, last year but was also unsuccessful at the High Court and the Federal Court.

In the second joint habeas corpus application, the five men sought to be brought before the court and released in line with the provision of Article 5(2) of the Federal Constitution.

They challenged the validity of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's order confirming the recommendation of the ISA Advisory Board for extension of their detention on and after March 26 last year because of procedural non-compliance by the Advisory Board.

Today Karpal Singh urged the court to reverse the decision of the Ipoh High Court delivered on Sept 8 last year, dismissing his clients'second habeas corpus bid.

He said there was procedural defect due to the Advisory Board's failure to allow the five leaders' application to call the investigating officer as a witness.

Karpal Singh disputed the presence of two senior federal counsel, Datuk Abdul Wahab Mohamed and Najib Zakaria, at the Advisory Board hearing which was done in camera and in the absence of the detainees and their counsel.

He said the procedure adopted by the board was flawed due to their presence thereby contaminating the board's recommendation and the King's decision confirming the extension of the detention.

Yusof argued that the men's continued detention after March 26 last year was valid and in accordance with the Federal Constitution and that the board had strictly complied with the law.

He said the powers and functions of the Advisory Board were governed by Rule 10 (1) and 10 (2) of the Internal Security (Advisory Board Procedure) Rules 1972 which empowered the board to self-regulate its own procedure in respect of any matter.

He also contended that the board was empowered under Rule 10 and Section 16 of the ISA to examine the investigating officer in absence of the detainees and their counsel.