Parliament Should Not Have Extended Sosma

---

 



When I read the news that the Dewan Rakyat had approved the motion to extend the enforcement of Section 4(5) of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) for another five years from July 31, I was deeply disappointed.
My disappointment was compounded when it was reported that MPs from Bersatu and PAS had also supported the Sosma extension. These are people who previously spoke up against the draconian nature of Sosma; now they voted to support the very same Act they opposed.
For whatever reasons, they have now changed their stand.
I have represented many persons who were detained and later tried under the Sosma provisions. They are purported supporters or sympathisers of the Islamic State (IS). They were arrested and charged with various ‘security offences’ relating to the IS.
Their purported crimes include expressing support for the terrorist group on Telegram or Facebook, to having IS-linked images on their phones or devices.
Whether they are indeed guilty of these crimes, is not relevant to this article. What is important to emphasise is that anyone arrested and charged in court should be accorded a basic and fundamental right - the right to a fair trial.
These individuals would relay to me their experiences, which are eerily similar.
Under Sosma, the police are allowed to detain a person for 28 days without the need for a remand order. In that 28 days of detention, these individuals will be subjected to various forms of pressure for them to ‘confess’ to their ‘crimes’. They were usually told, for example, that if they do not do so, their family members would be arrested.
Just imagine, the situation. You are cut off from the outside world, without access to your family and without advice from a lawyer. Pressure would be placed on you. Imagine, what would happen in that instance?
What would you do if you faced such a situation?
Pressured to confess
It is no wonder that most people would finally agree to sign a ‘confession’ document, which is made under Section 18A of Sosma. This Section 18A document would then be used against you in court, and the admissibility of the document cannot be challenged.
This is contrary to the normal rules, where such admissions would not be admissible, but is allowed under Sosma because of the ‘special’ nature of these security offences.
Faced with such odds, there is little wonder if most who face charges would just plead guilty. Even if they claimed trial, the trial would end with a conviction.
Thus in my experience handling these cases, Sosma does not guarantee a fair trial for accused persons.
Without a doubt, efforts to combat and eradicate the scourge of terrorism should be supported. Similarly too, threats to national security must be dealt with effectively.
It is also not denied that such threats require special measures given to the authorities to investigate and eradicate them.
Yet at the same time, the law must uphold the principles of fairness, equality and the basic rights of humans which are enshrined in the Federal Constitution.
Sosma does not uphold these principles and rights.
I wish the MPs who supported the motion would meet with some of the former detainees. Hear for themselves, their experiences, trials and tribulations.
Maybe after that, they might think twice about supporting this problematic piece of legislation. - Mkini
SYAHREDZAN JOHAN is a civil liberties lawyer, DAP national social media bureau chairperson, and a CEC member.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---