The order of the Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that will effectively shut down the operations of Rappler, Inc., an independent digital media company that has been critical of the government, deviates from national jurisprudence and violates the internationally recognized right to freedom of expression by the media, said the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) today.
The ICJ today denounced the decision by Pakistani authorities to conduct the trial of Idrees Khattak, a leading human rights defender, in a military court.
Idrees Khattak is charged with “spying” among other offenses, related to his monitoring of violations by military forces in 2009. He was forcibly disappeared by the Pakistani Military Intelligence in November 2019. His whereabouts remained unknown until June 2020, when military authorities informed the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances that he was being tried under the Official Secrets Act, 1923.
The Peshawar High Court yesterday dismissed a petition challenging the jurisdiction of the military courts in this case. Under international standards, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Pakistan is a party, civilians such as Idrees Khattak must not be subject to the jurisdiction of military tribunals.
“Idrees Khattak was subjected to the serious crime of enforced disappearance and instead of bringing the perpetrators of this violation to account, the Pakistani military has kept him arbitrarily detained and is now violating his rights further by subjecting him to a military court,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General.
“The Pakistan government must immediately release Idrees Khattak. If there is real and credible evidence implicating him in a cognizable crime, he should be tried by a civilian court and his right to a fair trial should be fully respected,” said Zarifi
The ICJ has found proceedings before Pakistani military courts fall well short of national and international laws requiring fair trials before independent and impartial courts:
Idrees Khattak has been charged on multiple counts related to spying and other conduct “prejudicial to the safety or the interests of the State” under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act as well as section 59 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. The Pakistan Army Act gives military courts jurisdiction to try civilians for certain offences under the Official Secrets Act.
The alleged conduct for which Idrees Khattak has been charged dates back to July 2009 – ten years before his enforced disappearance.
A group of 10 independent experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council have characterized Idreek Khattak’s case as “emblematic of a series of documented enforced disappearances in Pakistan, where many human rights defenders are similarly silenced for their legitimate work of monitoring, documenting and advocating against a range of human rights violations and attacks against minorities.”
The ICJ calls on Pakistani authorities to immediately release Idrees Khattak.
The ICJ also calls on Pakistani authorities to ensure military courts only have jurisdiction to try military personnel for military offences and to bring procedures of military courts in conformity with international standards.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General, sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Advisor (South Asia), reema.omer(a)icj.org
Additional information
In July 2017, in its Concluding Observations after Pakistan’s first periodic review under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the UN Human Rights Committee stated that it was concerned by the jurisdiction of military courts over civilians and allegations of fair trial violations in military courts’ proceedings.
The Human Rights Committee recommended that Pakistan “review the legislation relating to the military courts with a view to abrogating their jurisdiction over civilians and their authority to impose the death penalty” and “reform the military courts to bring their proceedings into full conformity with articles 14 and 15 of the Covenant in order to ensure a fair trial.”
The Malaysian authorities must immediately put an end to their increasing attacks on freedom of expression, especially the media, international non-governmental organisations the ICJ, Amnesty International, CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation said today.
Laws incompatible with international human rights law and standards, including the Sedition Act 1948 and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998, are being used to limit free speech and press freedom and should be repealed by the legislature.
In the latest move in the ongoing clampdown on criticism and other expression, authorities have targeted those involved in making the documentary “Locked Up in Malaysia’s Lockdown,” by news broadcaster Al Jazeera and its 101 East series – which reported on the authorities’ arrests of migrant workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Al-Jazeera is being investigated for sedition and defamation, and has also been accused of breaching the Communications and Multimedia Act by the Malaysian authorities.
On 3 July 2020, Al Jazeera on its 101 East Stream published a documentary that investigated the arrests, detention, and ill-treatment of refugees and undocumented migrant workers during the outbreak of COVID-19 in Malaysia. The documentary highlighted raids conducted by authorities; the inhumane conditions of detention; and the situation of migrant workers who fear arrest. Those detained were found to be held in cramped facilities, while migrant workers at risk of detention suffered from a severe lack of adequate food. The documentary also highlighted the chilling effect the government crackdown has had on the migrant worker community, who fear for their lives and safety.
Rather than addressing the concerns raised in the documentary, the government has instead sought to question the reporters involved, and pursue migrant workers who spoke with Al Jazeera. By initiating a public campaign against migrants and refugees and publishing personal details of the migrant workers who were featured in the report, the authorities have also placed the lives and safety of those interviewed in jeopardy.
The government’s subsequent threats to revoke the visas of foreign workers appears intended to intimidate other migrant workers from speaking up about human rights violations, including mistreatment. These actions have contributed to a worrying rise in intolerance towards freedom of expression, including critical views.
Amnesty International, CIVICUS World Alliance for Citizen Participation, and the ICJ consider these actions as forms of harassment and intimidation of the media, migrant workers, and others exercising their right to freedom of expression, including criticism or dissent.
The use of the Sedition Act 1948, Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act, and criminal investigations against the media set a dangerous precedent and are incompatible with international law and standards. These laws place restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression that are overly broad, unnecessary and disproportionate, and inconsistent with rule of law and human rights principles.
We reiterate their our previous calls on the Government of Malaysia to abolish both laws, which have historically been used to silence voices of those challenging government policy.
Background
Since the COVID-19 pandemic emerged earlier this year, the Malaysian government has launched a crackdown on refugees, asylum-seekers and migrant workers, carrying out a series of raids on settlements in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor. Most notably, raids were carried out as Labour Day operations on 1 May 2020, but also continued afterwards.
In response to these raids, the Office of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) denounced the crackdowns on migrant workers and journalists on 21 May. Migrant workers fear for their safety and there have been reports of suicide amongst them.
Amid growing concerns about the crackdown, the government has increasingly sought to silence criticism.
On 7 July, refugee aid worker Heidy Quah was questioned by police for posting a statement on the raids and the treatment of migrant and refugee children on social media. Her lawyer confirmed that she is being investigated under the Penal Code for criminal defamation and the Communications and Multimedia Act for the ‘improper use of network facilities or network service’.
Since the Perikatan Nasional government assumed power, numerous investigations have been launched against individuals who have criticized government actions. Since February 2020, a journalist has been investigated by police for reporting on immigration raids; a member of parliament was investigated for criticising the May parliamentary session for not permitting debates; and a large number of ordinary Malaysians have been convicted for a variety of social media postings, including for criticising the enforcement of quarantine orders under the Movement Control Order (MCO).
In another recent attack on media freedom, on 2 July 2020, contempt of court charges were filed against Steven Gan, editor-in-chief of online news outlet Malaysiakini, over comments that were posted by readers that were allegedly critical of the judiciary. The Federal Court will next hear the case on 13 July. If convicted, Gan faces an unlimited prison sentence or fine.
The ICJ, Amnesty International, ARTICLE 19, ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights, CIVICUS and Human Rights Watch today called on Singapore authorities to drop investigations of human rights lawyer M Ravi and two other individuals under Singapore’s contempt of court law and cease their harassment of human rights defenders.
On 13 March, police raided the office of human rights lawyer M Ravi, editor of an independent news website, Terry Xu, seizing his phone, passport and firm’s laptop.
He is apparently under investigation for contempt of court under the Administration of Justice Act (AJPA).
The investigation followed the publication of articles on independent media website ‘The Online Citizen’ (TOC) relating to his client, Mohan Rajangam, a Singaporean who challenged the legality of his extradition from Malaysia in 2015.
The same day, police raided the home of Terry Xu, TOC’s editor, and confiscated his electronic equipment. He is also being investigated for contempt of court under the AJPA, after he published articles on Rajangam’s case. Two other individuals are also being subject to investigation, including Rajangam himself and a writer for the TOC.
Even as the police have stated that the publication online on TOC of parts of Rajangam’s affidavit breached contempt of court regulations, it is unclear what exact content poses a risk of prejudice to the court proceedings.
“The contempt of court doctrine under common law was, for years, used by authorities to curtail speech surrounding politically sensitive topics and cases,” noted Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Director for Asia and the Pacific.
“After the coming into force of the AJPA, the contempt regime is even more vulnerable for misuse – these current raids and investigations only evidence that how the law can be abused to violate the rights of individuals.”
Investigations of the four individuals for contempt of court continue. The ICJ has been informed that as of 15 March, M Ravi had put the police on notice that the contents of his mobile phone and laptop are subject to legal professional privilege and should remain confidential until a formal ruling is made by a court of law on the matter.
Terry Xu and M Ravi have been targeted and harassed constantly by authorities for information they have released in their professional capacities as an independent journalist and human rights lawyer respectively – notably through abuse of legal mechanisms. Terry Xu is currently fighting pending cases in court relating to alleged defamation of political officials and Singapore’s problematic Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA). M Ravi has similarly faced action by the Attorney-General’s Chambers for his advocacy against the death penalty.
“In the lead-up to elections, it is even more crucial that the Singapore government ensure that freedom of expression, opinion and information are protected and that independent media is allowed to operate to ensure communication of a diversity of opinions and ideas and inform public opinion,” said Rawski.
“For these reasons we urge the authorities to cease harassment of the four individuals and call on them to drop investigations against them”.
Read the joint statement here.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Background
In its 2019 regional report, ‘Dictating the Internet: Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Southeast Asia’, the ICJ found that in Singapore contempt of court proceedings have been used to curtail freedom of expression and information under the guise of “maintaining orderly proceedings” and “protecting public confidence in the judiciary”, particularly in cases of online criticism touching on politically sensitive matters.
In October 2017, the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 came into force, despite well founded concerns that its vague provisions could result in abusive interpretation and implementation, given existing trends of use of contempt of court under common law to limit freedom of expression.
The AJPA lowered the threshold for contempt in what is referred to as “scandalizing the Court”, expanding judicial powers to punish such contempt with increased and onerous penalties. Section 3(1) criminalizes the “scandalizing of court” through (i) “impugning the integrity, propriety or impartiality” of judges by “intentionally publishing any matter or doing any act that… poses a risk that public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined” (section 3(1)(a)); and (ii) “intentional” publishing of any material which interferes with pending court proceedings, or sub judice contempt (section 3(1)(b)). Section 3(1)(a) reduced the threshold for “scandalizing” contempt to a mere “risk” of undermining public confidence in the judiciary, where the common law test established in the landmark case of Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan was to establish a “real risk” of such undermining of confidence. This exacerbated a standard that was already deeply problematic.
Section 12(1) of the AJPA increased the maximum penalty for “scandalizing” contempt to three years’ imprisonment or a fine of S$100,000 (approx. USD 72,051) or both, when under common law, a six-week imprisonment sentence and S$20,000 (approx. USD 14,410) fine had been deemed appropriate.