The Kuala Lumpur High Court has adjourned a RM87 million lawsuit filed by a group of human rights activists against the government in 1998 for negligence and wrongful detention.

After waiting for six years, the suit was scheduled to have begun hearing next Monday before presiding judge Azmel Ma'amor but has now been postponed to Aug 3 for mention.

According to one of the counsel for the plaintiffs, Ranjit Singh, the case was adjourned as the court has been slated to hear several election petitions challenging the results of the March 21 polls.

"We had received a call from the court's registrar who indicated that the matter was to be adjourned. We also received a letter from the attorney-general late last week which said they wished to adjourn the matter," said Ranjit adding that he was looking at a possible September hearing date.

The 36 activists have named as defendants the government of Malaysia, then inspector-general of police Rahim Noor and several senior police officers.

Venue stormed

The activists were arrested on the opening day of the Second Asia Pacific Conference on East Timor (Apcet II) in Kuala Lumpur Nov 9, 1996. The conference was to discuss the issue of human rights abuses in East Timor and its struggle for independence from Indonesia.

As the conference was about to begin, a 400-strong group from the Umno Youth-led Barisan Bertindak Rakyat Malaysia (BBRM) - Malaysian Peoples' Action Front - stormed the conference venue, broke down the doors and threatened participants present.

Police moved in about an hour later and arrested the Apcet II participants, who were held in the lock-ups for between one to six days.

Among those detained were Parti Keadilan Rakyat deputy president Dr Syed Husin Ali, its vice-president Tian Chua and human rights group Suaram director Dr Kua Kia Soong.

Also detained were a number of local and foreign journalists, including malaysiakini co-founders Steven Gan and Premesh Chandran, who were then working for The Sun.

Leaders plead guilty

Four Umno Youth leaders including a state assemblyman were later arrested and charged in court with rioting at the Apcet II conference venue. They pleaded guilty and were slapped with a small fine.

The plaintiffs in their statement of claim say that the police had failed to respond immediately to the violence caused by the BBRM members at the conference venue and were therefore negligent in ensuring their (the plaintiffs') safety.

They also questioned the police for detaining them. The activists claim that the various remand orders made against them were 'improper, invalid and/or not in compliance with the Criminal Procedure Code' and were therefore unlawful.

"The plaintiffs contend that the defendants' actions were oppressive, arbitrary and unconstitutional," added the statement.