New Delhi
13 July 2007
Mohammed Haneef is the first person to be held under the new anti-
terrorism legislation in Australia. His detention has stirred a debate in that country and
pushed the Australians to grasp the import and consequence of their anti-terror law.
The Australian media, a civil rights group and a political party have criticised Canberra
for the 11-day-long detention of Haneef (27) without bringing charges. The verbal
sparring is reminiscent of the protests over Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) in India.
Australia's Law Council President Tim Bugg has said that the law was not being fair in
Haneef's case. The Australian media quoted him as saying that the laws left Haneef in "a
state of suspended animation".
Human rights group Amnesty was equally critical of Haneef's indefinite detention. In a
statement it said: "The whole situation flies in the face of the rule of law. If his case goes
to trial, the presumption of innocence has already been significantly affected. If he is
released he (Haneef) will not be able to return to normal life without suspicion".
The Australian Greens, a political party, has said that the length of Haneef's detention
without charge has "dramatically exceeded government predictions" of what would be
reasonable when the anti-terrorism laws were enacted. The party suggested that it
should be a concern to all Australians that the police can keep a person in detention
without charge indefinitely.
The problem, as Haneef's detention bore out, is that Australia's anti-terror law puts no
cap on the period of detention and does not allow application for bail. According to Dr
Andrew Lynch, director of the Gilbert and Tobin Centre of Public Law at University of New
South Wales, what was troubling about the Australian laws was that there was no time
limit. "[We] are working with a fairly uncertain system, and I think people are surprised
by what's happening", he said.
Haneef's lawyer Peter Russo has said that Haneef's detention was shaping as an
important test case. "My understanding is that this particular section of the crimes act
hasn't been tested before," he said. "There is no safety mechanism built into the
legislation." He went on to assert that the system was not balanced for his client to be
accorded any sort of rights or natural justice.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard's was the only dissonant voice. He said that he
was not uncomfortable with the prolonged detention without charge of Haneef. "I'm happy
with the laws because I sponsored them. I defend them. We do need to arm ourselves
with the laws that are being applied at the present circumstance," he was quoted as
saying by the Australian media.
No comments:
Post a Comment