The release of the four Sarawakian hostages by the Abu Sayyaf on June 8, has been marred by controversy over RM12 million ransom money.
The issue first arose when the families of the hostages said they passed RM12 million to police Special Branch officers to pay the ransom, after those who contributed demanded to know what happened to the cash.
The police had earlier said the four were released without any ransom paid.
Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi had explained that the RM12 million raised had been given to an Islamic body in the Philippines, that has no links to terrorists or criminals.
He had also stressed that the payment was not ransom to secure the four Sarawakian hostages' release.
On the other hand, inspector-general of police Khalid Abu Bakar had strongly denied that Special Branch personnel received the money collected for ransom from the families of the hostages.
However, he did reveal that family members of the hostages had gone to Zambaonga City in the Philippines to meet and negotiate with representatives of the Abu Sayyaf kidnappers.
Although the police helped secure their safe passage and security, he insisted that the police were never involved in any ransom payment.
He had added that police could not stop family members from negotiating or paying ransom themselves, if they chose to do so.
While it is still unclear what had happened to the RM12 million, it should be noted that under Section 6 (2) of the Kidnapping Act 1961, it is stated that "whoever knowingly negotiates or assists in any negotiation to pay or pays or provides funds for the payment of any ransom shall be guilty of an offence".
Wide net
Lawyer Amer Hamzah Arshad told Malaysiakini that the Act has been in place for a long time.
"The IGP should know better," he said.
He also acknowledged that Section 6 (2) casts a wide net on those who could be charged under it.
"(That section) is wide enough to include those who provide funds for the payment of any ransom or those who negotiate or assist in any negotiation.
"Unless the objective of the negotiation is to apprehend the kidnappers, whereby the so-called negotiation is merely a ruse," he explained.
Fellow lawyer Cheow Wee said that in the strictest sense, it would appear that this section can be applied to the current situation with the' families of the Sarawakian hostages
He then elaborated that this provision is essentially a policy decision to discourage members of public to negotiate on their own because they are not trained and do not have the experience.
"More often than not, the victim's families would have either informed the police and negotiated with their full knowledge.
"For practical reasons and common sense, family members who negotiate with the kidnappers are never charged," he said.
He added that this provision is more applicable to those who are considered accomplices in the kidnapping.
More of a deterrent
Amer also agreed that the provision is more of a deterrent.
"It is to deter the public from encouraging such acts. It has to be looked from that perspective.
"It simply means that the law doesn't tolerate kidnapping and any activities relating to it, including payment of ransom," he said.
From his experience, he said, it is quite rare for anyone to be prosecuted under that provision, and that normally they deal with Section 3 of the Kidnapping Act instead.
Section 3 of the Act deals with "abduction, wrongful restraint or wrongful confinement for ransom".
The four Sarawakian hostages were released last Wednesday following their kidnap by Abu Sayyaf militants near Pulau Ligitan, Semporna, Sabah on April 1.
The four were brothers Wong Teck Kang, 31, and Wong Teck Chii, 29, their cousin, Johny Lau Jung Hien, 21, and tugboat crew member Wong Hung Sing, 34. -Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.