I noticed that several groups from the Bar Council to the Women's Agenda for Change (WAC) had advocated for the charging of the victims of the Internal Security Act, 1960 under ordinary laws as opposed to preventive detention.

I have some comments on this. If they are to be charged in the ordinary way, then they remain victims of the state who had detained the majority of them from April 10, for more than the usual 14-day remand period under the Criminal Procedure Code.

I think that rights of political detainees and the rights of the religious minority groups (the Shi'ites) arrested under the ISA (in December 2000), would not be safeguarded in 'the ordinary way' as the state through the office of the Attorney-General (AG) would charge them under sedition for example which is equally an obnoxious law. Judicial decisions on sedition have supported the state's status quo as in ISA cases.

We have to draw the line between the so-called legality of the law and the legitimacy of such repressive laws which today serves to protect the party in power as opposed to upholding the rule of law and the security of the people.

I think we should refrain from too readily proposing that victims of preventive detention laws be charged in court as we have seen the possibility of manipulation by state agencies of evidence, procedure and even the judiciary. Has the independence of the judiciary return in recent months? I think we have not yet explored the indices for judicial independence for public consumption.

This makes the position of the Bar Council rather curious as well. Perhaps the Bar is protecting the business of lawyering?

We should think twice, and think through these matters as we do not want the victims of preventive detention laws coming out of the frying pan into the fire.