National Security Council law constitutional, says former A-G

Former attorney-general Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman says there is a difference between declaring an emergency and declaring a security area. – The Malaysian Insider pic, December 24, 2015.Although political parties, activists, the Malaysian Bar and human rights groups have voiced concerns that the controversial National Security Council (NSC) Bill violates the Federal Constitution and the sanctity of the rule of law, former attorney-general Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman disagrees, saying it does not breach any provisions in the Constitution.

He said the bill only talked about making an area a security zone and not declaring an emergency.

"There is a difference between declaring an emergency and declaring a security area," he told The Malaysian Insider.

The bill was passed by the Dewan Negara on Tuesday. It was bulldozed through the lower house or Dewan Rakyat in a matter of two days earlier this month.

All laws passed by Parliament must be consistent with articles in the constitution, the supreme law of the land or else litigants could challenge its legality in court.

Critics said the proposed legislation would give the prime minister "emergency-like power", which they argued, should only be in the hands of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as enshrined in the Federal Constitution.

They said it gives unfettered powers to the prime minister without the need to get royal consent during national crises.

The bill allows for arrests, searches and property seizures in that area without a warrant.

Constitutional law expert Abdul Aziz Bari had said the bill removed checks and balances and allowed the prime minister to sideline the Cabinet.

Abu Talib, who was the A-G between 1980 and 1993, however, said there were provisions in the Bill that "appeared draconian", especially on the special power of the director of operations and security forces deployed to a security area.
  
For example, he said section 38 of the suggested legislation stated that no action, suits or prosecution could be brought against the council and its members in the performance of their duties in good faith.

"Now the term good faith is very subjective and surely an aggrieved party should be allowed to seek legal redress to obtain justice," he added.
 
He said there were senators appointed by the Barisan Nasional (BN) who had expressed concern on certain provisions in the proposed law.

"I was made to understand that the minister who moved the proposed legislation in the Dewan Negara pledged to take the feedback to the Cabinet," he said.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim, when winding up the reading of the bill on Tuesday, said the government was willing to accept criticism and take into consideration ways to improve weaknesses in the law.

Abu Talib said the bill would only become law once it had obtained royal assent and gazetted.

"However, nothing stops the government from reviewing the law after considering all the feedback from the public and lawmakers," he added.

Civil rights groups said they would engage the people to continue explaining the real effects of the law despite the BN-dominated upper house approving the bill without any amendments.

- TMI