In this final part of an exclusive three-part interview with Shaik Daud Mohd Ismail, the former judge of the Court of Appeal reveals his most challenging moments on the job as well as his views concerning the Internal Security Act and the universal right to a fair trial.

Malaysiakini: You have vast experience both in prosecution and judiciary. Which do you find more interesting, prosecuting or sitting on the bench?

Shaik Daud: Prosecuting is more interesting because you do research to prepare your case. On the bench, we are just fed by the prosecutors and lawyers. And in doing research you learn a lot of things and that makes it more interesting.

Did you handle any controversial cases while you were with the AG's Chambers?

The most controversial case I handled was when I was with the ACA (Anti-Corruption Agency) as senior federal counsel for four years. I handled the case involving Datuk Harun Idris (the then Selangor menteri besar). It was eventually taken over by Tun Salleh Abas (former lord president) who was then the solicitor-general.

But I was the prosecutor who charged Harun and appeared before Datuk Siti Norma (now a Federal Court judge) who was then with the Sessions Court. I was also involved in the investigation of the case.

In investigating and eventually charging such a high-profile figure, what was the pressure like?

Oh, the pressure was very intense! We felt the pressure from day one because a lot of Umno people expressed their dislike of the idea of he (Harun) being charged. As the head of the prosecution team, I was also harassed by some people. There were suspicious characters who passed my house on motorbikes. Then I had to call the police who had to tap my phone. All in-coming calls were screened. There were a lot of protests against charging him. On the first day, I had to be escorted to the court room because the building was full with Umno Youth members who shouted at me.

Why were they angry?

I think it was because they did not know head or tail of the case or what was going on. They could not accept the fact that their leader was being investigated for corruption. But once the matter came to court, they heard the evidence then slowly realised that they could no longer support him. I had no problem after that.

Did the pressure and criticism affect your work?

I tried to ignore them. After all I was just doing my work. If I hadn't done it, somebody would. But fortunately no harm came out of their anger. Neither my family or myself had our lives threatened. What they did was more of an annoyance. Some people may not cope with it. But I had no problem when the case went on trial.

What is your opinion regarding the ISA?

I feel there is still a need for the ISA but unfortunately it is being abused.

So how do we prevent the abuse?

I think the arbitrary power for the police to arrest and detain people for two months should be modified. It does not matter whether the detention period is short or long but the power should be revoked.

If the police have something against anyone, they should lodge a report and go to court to apply for a warrant and detention order. At least the court will be objective and not subjective. The court will then issue a detention order for a certain period, it does not matter how long, maybe two or three months.

But more importantly, the reason for detention under the ISA will be on record. Now the police seem to be working in darkness. Not only that, it is also the way they arrest people. They arrest people at two, three in the morning. His (the detainee's) family won't know where he is. This is wrong. They should get a proper order from the court and arrest the suspect, if possible during the day. Why should you arrest people in the middle of the night when they are sleeping?

There are reports about a mother who was arrested under the ISA in the early morning and [being forced to leave] the children alone without adult guidance. Yes, I read about that. If that is true, isn't that a cruel way to treat another human being? Why so zalim (cruel)? Is the suspect so horrible that he has to be treated with such contempt? The arrest should be made civilly and properly. If it's done in a proper manner and according to procedure, I don't think people will question the arrest.

Further, when the order is made by the court, it can be challenged. Now, it cannot be challenged until the home minister issues a two-year detention order. In the meantime, for the next 60 days, his family cannot see him or know his condition. Anything can happen in 60 days. Sometimes even without reason, the police still detain suspects for 60 days under the authority of the ISA. That is why we need to review the whole act. To prevent abuses.

Do you think Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail should call for a review of the ISA?

I do not think that Datuk Gani has the power to call for the review, It's up to the government to decide that it's time to change, they can direct Datuk Gani to review the act.

Is there any likelihood of the government doing that? Isn't that highly unlikely?

Yes, (smiles) but you can never say. People change.

What is your opinion of the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam)?

The former team seemed to have done quite well. I do not know why they removed the previous team's commissioner Anuar Zainal Abidin and several others who seemed to make a lot of difference in legal issues and human rights.

What do you think about the appointment of Abu Talib Othman as the new head of Suhakam?

I had worked under him while I was in the AG's Chambers. We had respect for each other. Of course we had our arguments and differences but he always liked a good argument. Hopefully Abu Talib (photo) will continue with what was already done earlier. That would be very good for the rakyat. Also, I think former judges should be given the chance to head or participate is such organisations. Judges are the champion of human rights and we have proved it in court. But it's unfortunate that people do not realise that.

Can you comment on ex-deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim's case?

Everything has been said. There is nothing more to add. But what I feel is that everyone must be given a fair trial and the freedom to present his defence in any way that he thinks fit, according to the proper procedure, of course. Be it a gangster or a minister he cannot be denied a fair trial. I heard so many drug-trafficking cases and some of their defences were terrible. But we did not scold or criticise them. We listened, took notes and considered whatever we could just as we would in any other case. If there is enough evidence we must convict him, but if it is insufficient then we must acquit.

In cases involving public figures, from my experience, the prosecution must make sure that their case is 100 percent fool-proof. This is not only to avoid making public blunders but also so that people cannot question your credibility. Even if there is a 70 percent chance for a conviction, it is not enough. When you have strong case, people cannot question your credibility or the credibility of your evidence.

Like in the case of Datuk Harun, we did our investigations thoroughly and were extra careful when prosecuting. At first the people were angry with us for charging him but as the case developed, the protest disappeared. Why? Because the evidence was strong and the case was good and thus the people had no chance to doubt the credibility of the prosecution or the court.

You were recently chosen as an ad-hoc member in the AG's Chambers Law Review Committee on the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). What do you think of the idea behind the committee?

It's a good idea as it will start to pave the way for a proper law review commission. We should see how well it works and if it is efficient then maybe they can make it into a proper and independent division. I may even suggest to the government to set up a division. The move to review the CPC is long overdue considering that it was enacted in 1816. I had relayed to the relevant people a long time ago when I was with the AG's Chambers. Most are archaic provisions. But nothing was done until now. Sometimes the relevant authorities do not heed obvious advice.

For example, sometime back, I had pointed out that the sentence for incest should be harsher, maybe life imprisonment or death. The offence of incest cannot be the same with rape. It involves fathers, grandfathers, uncles, brothers. The agony suffered by the victims is not the same as those of a rape victim. In fact, I suggest that in cases where mothers who knew their daughters were subjected to sexual abuse by their husbands and yet refuse to report it for unacceptable reasons, ought to be charged with abetment.