It was a joyful tale of justice being served, as the Star Online reported that, after 13 years, 29 participants of the Asia-Pacific Conference on East Timor (Apcet) II who sued the police and Gov­ernment for unlawful arrest and detention were finally awarded RM30,000 each by a High Court.

Justice Wan Adnan Muhamad ruled that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving that their detention from Nov 9 to Nov 10, 1996 was not valid. “The court awards RM30,000 to each of the plaintiff in general damages. These damages are not rewards but compensation. I believe that RM30,000 is sufficient compensation for the suffering the plaintiffs endured during their arrest and detention for almost 24 hours,” he said yesterday.

He also ordered that the plaintiffs – among them then PKR vice-president Dr Sanusi Othman, PKR deputy president Dr Syed Hussein Ali, PKR vice-president R. Sivarasa, PKR strategist Tian Chua, Malaysiakini chief executive officer Premesh Chandran, Malaysiakini editor-in-chief Steven Gan and MTUC president Syed Shahir Syed Mohamad – be paid with interests and costs. Former Kuala Lumpur police chief Ismail Che’ Ros, former Dang Wangi OCPD Zainal Abidin Ali, investigations officer C/Insp Tengku Hamzah Tengku Abdullah and the Government were named as defendants.

A group of 36 people, a majority of whom were local human rights activists and journalists, had filed a RM35mil suit against the police and the Government on Nov 9, 1998. However, only 29 were awarded damages as four had withdrawn their cases, one died, and two failed to appear during proceedings. Over 100 people were arrested on the opening day of Apcet II, which was held to discuss human rights abuses in East Timor and the territory’s struggle for independence from Indonesia, on Nov 9, 1996. Justice Wan Adnan ruled that while Zainal Abidin, who ordered the arrests, had the authority to do so, he should have used his discretion as he found that the conference could not have amounted to a security threat as it was a private event.

Justice Wan Adnan said the reason for the arrests was that the participants had not obeyed the order to disperse, which the defen­dants claimed they had given three times. “The plaintiffs, however, say that there had only been one warning, followed immediately by an arrest order. They also said they were not given enough time to disperse as the two minutes they requested to collect their things were also not allowed. “The court finds that the arrest and detention conducted by the police did not adhere to the law,” he said.