KUALA LUMPUR: A lawyer representing 18 individuals detained under the Security Offenses (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) filed a legal challenge yesterday against their remand.
T. Harpal Singh, the lawyer representing the detainees, said his clients, who have been in remand since June, except for one, are seeking to contest the constitutionality of several provisions of Sosma, particularly Sections 4(5), 13, 14, 15, 16, 18A, 20 and 30.
"An originating summons has been filed at the High Court against the government, but we're seeking leave for the case to be heard before the Federal Court as it involves constitutional matters," he said after a briefing session with family members of 'Geng TR', who were detained under Sosma.
Harpal said that given the prolonged detention, any legal issue affecting his clients' liberty should be resolved urgently.
"The issues involved are of public interest, and considering the impact of Sosma on both the plaintiffs and the broader public, the application should be heard promptly, as it concerns legal questions about the constitutionality and application of Sosma."
Under Sosma, those arrested face a "one-way street" with limited legal recourse, he said.
Individuals arrested under Sosma have little chance of receiving a fair trial or natural justice, as there is no opportunity for a proper trial or for lawyers to effectively challenge the charges and secure an acquittal, he said.
He said Section 14, which outlines the procedure for applying for a protected witness, and Section 16, which addresses the use of protected witnesses of the act are unfair.
He said that under these provisions, the prosecution can present a protected witness who testifies from a private room where no one can see them.
"The witness can claim that all the accused are involved together, and this can lead to a conviction, which is highly unfair.
"There have been many cases in the High Court where convictions were based solely on the testimony of protected witnesses.
"This makes Sections 14 and 16 unconstitutional, as they undermine the fairness of the trial process."
He said it was uncertain whether the accused have voluntarily given the statement as provided by Section 18A of the Act.
"Under the Criminal Procedure Code, whatever statement given is inadmissible.
"But here, under Sosma, (it) is admissible.
"We said this is unconstitutional because we don't know whether the accused have voluntarily given a statement."
On May 29, 20 men between the ages of 26 and 51 were charged in the Klang Sessions Court for their participation in organised crime activities in the 'Geng TR' group for the past five years.
They were alleged to have committed the offence at a restaurant in Jalan Bagan Sungai Janggut, Jeram, near Kuala Selangor from November 2019 to May 2, this year.
The charges are framed under Section 130V (1) of the Penal Code which carries a prison sentence of between five and 20 years, if convicted.