Yazid, Halimah face terrorism related charges
Two of the three detainees under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) were today charged with promoting terrorist acts.
Two of the three detainees under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) were today charged with promoting terrorist acts.
"You have knowingly promoted the commissioning of terrorist acts with the intention of advancing an ideology, and this can be reasonably construed to be intended to threaten civilians in Syria," says the charge against Yazid Sufaat (
right
).
His acquaintance, Halimah Hussein,is charged with being an accomplice in the same offence, which was allegedly committed between 8.30am and 10.30am on Oct 20 last year at Yazid’s house in Taman Bukit Ampang.
The third Sosma detainee, Mohd Hilmi Hasim, remains in detention and his fate is unknown. The law allows for detentions without trial for up to 28 days, and for access to lawyers to be delayed for up to 48 hours from the time of arrest.
Yazid and Halimah became the first to face charges under Section 130G(a) of the Penal Code, which is punishable with up to 30 years' in jail and a fine, according to their counsel Fadiah Nadwa Fikri. The amendment came into force in 2007.
No plea was recorded during the hearing at the Ampang magistrate’s court because it does not have jurisdiction to hear cases involving security offences. Such offences are also not bailable under the provisions of Sosma.
The cases have been referred to the Shah Alam High Court. Deputy public prosecutor Ishak Mohd Yusof told reporters that the High Court would inform the prosecution on the date the case would be heard.
Also on the prosecution team are deputy public prosecutors Mohd Hanafiah Zakaria and Dusuki Mokhtar.
Yazid, Halimah and Hilmi are represented by Fadiah, Amer Hamzah Arshad, Afiq M Noor Wan and Hidayati Nadirah and Farida Mohd.
Clarification sought on Section 130G(a)
During the proceedings, the defence sought clarification on whether Section 130G(a) of the Penal Code was already in force, saying they could find the date it was gazetted on, but not when it came into force.
“This matter has no jurisdiction to proceed if there is no offence,” said Amer, adding that the defence was only told that their clients were being charged under the section at the last minute, leaving little time for research.
The court then adjourned so that the prosecution team could obtain further details on the amendment. They left the courtroom in a huff, grumbling that this is a waste of time.
“This is bulls**t,” quipped Dusuki on this way out.
When the hearing resumed about 40 minutes later, Hanafiah furnished the court with the date and reference number of de facto Law Minister Nazri Abdul Aziz’s letter giving the date that the amendment comes into force.
Meanwhile, Amer explained that he meant no malice in his request and did not intend to stall the proceedings
Magistrate Zulyana Zulkifli then ordered for the case to be heard in the High Court.
Related stories
