The Malaysian Bar has welcomed the directive of the Prime Minister, Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, that the Government review and reassess the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 noting that the scrutiny of this draconian law is long overdue.
A mere review or piecemeal amendments of SOSMA, however, will not be sufficient to address the deep-seated flaws of the law. The Malaysian Bar said it firmly maintains that the Act must be repealed in its entirety.
President Mohamad Ezri b Abdul Wahab said any law governing security offences must operate within the frameworks of justice and due process. SOSMA, by its very nature, however, grants sweeping powers to law enforcement agencies, overriding fundamental rights and liberties enshrined in the Federal Constitution.
Ezei adds that it creates an environment ripe for misuse of power, where individuals are detained without proper judicial supervision, denied the right to bail, and subjected to a process that undermines their right to a fair trial. The very existence of such a law threatens the integrity of our legal system and the rule of law.
One of the most alarming aspects of SOSMA is the provision that allows for detention without judicial oversight. Under ordinary legal principles, a person who is arrested must be brought before a Magistrate within 24 hours. This is a crucial safeguard to prevent unlawful detention and to ensure that law enforcement agencies operate within legal boundaries. SOSMA extends the period of detention to 28 days without requiring the suspect to be presented before a Magistrate for remand. The 28 days of detention, without judicial scrutiny, is twice as long as the period of remand provided for under the Criminal Procedure
Code.
Further, SOSMA denies the accused the right to be granted bail, except in very limited circumstances. This is a denial of the presumption of innocence — a cornerstone of any fair and just legal system. The granting of bail is to strike a balance between protecting public interest and safeguarding individual liberty, yet SOSMA disregards this altogether, leading to situations where individuals face unnecessarily prolonged detention without trial.
Proponents of SOSMA argue that the law is necessary to combat threats to national security. However, this argument overlooks the fact that Malaysia already has other well-established laws that equip law enforcement agencies with more than enough statutory power to investigate individuals detained for complex security offences. These laws provide mechanisms for thorough investigation and prosecution, and do not erode the fundamental liberties of the accused person in the trial process. The authorities have no justification for resorting to SOSMA when these existing laws already provide the needed legal framework.
The existence of SOSMA is therefore not only redundant, but dangerous, as it removes key
safeguards that prevent overreach and abuse.
Ezri notes that a truly democratic nation does not sacrifice fundamental liberties in the name of national security. National security should never be used as a justification to diminish individual rights or to give unchecked powers to the authorities. The rule of law means that statutory power granted to the authorities or the Executive must remain within legal and constitutional boundaries, not outside of them. Any law that allows for the possibility of unchecked power, arbitrary detention, and the erosion of fair trial rights should not exist in a society that upholds justice.
President
