Habeas corpus hearing of EO6 adjourned to Aug 5

High Court judge adjourned the hearing on the grounds that the government wants to reply to the 15 affidavits filed by applicants' lawyers.

KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court here today allowed an application to adjourn hearing of the habeas corpus applications of six Parti Sosialis Malaysia leaders who have been held under the Emergency Ordinance since July 2.

Justice Su Geok Yiam allowed the adjournment on the grounds that the government wants to reply to the 15 affidavits filed by applicants’ lawyers.

In allowing time for the prosecution to file its affidavit, Justice Su said she was bound by a Federal Court ruling to give parties time to reply to the affidavits.

The judge fixed Aug 5 to hear the applications.The habeas corpus filing was done on July 6.
Justice Su also agreed to the adjournment after senior federal counsel Othman Yusof highlighted the most recent affidavits filed by Dr Subramaniam Pillai on behalf of the detainees.

“There are many claims that needs to be answered,” Othman said, in a crowded courtroom.
He is assisted by fellow senior federal counsel Amir Nasaruddin, Mohd Zain Ibrahim and Zafran Zafri Zaini.

Sulaiman Abdullah who led the appellant’s legal team was even willing to forfeit the 15 affidavits that was not addressed by the government in favor of a hearing today. This was dismissed by the court
The appelants’ legal team are also made up of Edmund Bon, Amer Hamzah Arshad, B Maha, K Arumugam, Aziri Malek, Baljit Singh, James Khong, Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, Ong Yu Jian and Andy Yong.

Continued detention in wrong

Sulaiman argued: “Continued detention is wrong in law. How do you justify continued detention (of the EO 6) after July 9?”

The EO 6 as they are now known are Sungai Siput MP Dr D Michael Jeyakumar along with five other activists – PSM deputy president M Sarasvathy, central committee members Choo Chon Kai and M Sugumaran, youth chief R Saratbabu and Sungai Siput branch secretary A Letchumanan.

They were rearrested on July 2 under section 3 (1) Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 (EO).

They were initially detained under section 122 of the Penal Code for allegedly waging war against the King late last month.

Sulaiman also raised the right to counsel for the detainees as provided by section 28(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Othman countered by pointing out that legal access was not necessary for those detained under preventive detention laws but the points were rebutted by Sulaiman.