The lawyers told FMT they fully supported the affirmation by Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad on Sunday that the government would abolish Sosma as the people must be protected from such unjust laws.
They said Sosma gives prosecutors the upper hand to secure convictions while denying the defence of a fair trial.
Sosma and the National Security Council Act are among several draconian laws that Pakatan Harapan (PH) promised to repeal in its 14th general election manifesto.
However, the announcement on the intended abolition of Sosma was questioned by former home minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi who defended the need for the law as there were people challenging the status of the Malay rulers and playing up racial sentiments.
Lawyer N Sivananthan made clear that Sosma was merely a procedural law while terrorism offences were prescribed in the Penal Code.
There are also other preventive laws like the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Pota) and Prevention of Crime Act (Poca) to check on terrorism and organised crimes.
“Sosma, however, has been abused to investigate and prosecute those allegedly involved in human trafficking,” he said.
He said those arrested under Sosma could be held up to 28 days while bail could be denied once the accused were charged.
Sivananthan had represented several Filipinos charged and convicted for waging war against the king in the 2013 Lahad Datu intrusion incident in Sabah, in which Sosma was used for the first time by the prosecution.
He said Sosma allowed prosecutors to use protected witnesses to give evidence from a location outside the courtroom.
“The defence cannot conduct an effective cross-examination because the witness is not in court,” he said.
Sosma also allowed sensitive and intercepted information to be admitted as evidence.
Sivananthan said Sosma also took precedence over other procedural legislations like the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and the Evidence Act in the event of a conflict between the laws.
Meanwhile, senior lawyer Zainur Zakaria said Sosma was abused in the case of 1MDB critics Khairuddin Abu Hassan and his counsel Matthias Chang who were charged with sabotaging the nation’s banking and financial services.
The former Malaysian Bar president said the police also abused their power by using Sosma to detain former Bersih 2.0 chairman Maria Chin Abdullah for organising a peaceful rally to criticise the leadership of former prime minister Najib Razak.
“Parliament only intended for Sosma to be used against militant and terrorist activities. The acts of the three could not be construed as a security offence,” said Zainur who was the counsel for Chang.
Lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla said Sosma was draconian because it allowed the authorities to detain accused persons even if the trial court acquitted them.
“It will take to two to three years for the appeals to conclude in the Federal Court. Meantime, the liberty of the person is affected,” he said.
Haniff, who was the counsel for Khairuddin, said Sosma was against the concept of justice as the accused would have been found guilty before a trial.
“First, bail is denied and secondly the accused could be held until the final appeal although the trial court had set the persons free,” he said.
Haniff said investigators and prosecutors should rely on the CPC and Evidence Act as these laws placed the defence on equal footing with the prosecution before and during trial.
He said Pota and Poca were adequate preventive laws to check terrorism and organised crime as the executive could order detention of up to two years without trial.
“Even these preventive laws should be fined-tuned to allow the judiciary to act as check and balance against the executive,” he said.
This is not police state, Najib told over suggestion to consult cops on Sosma