The police’s commitment to justice in the GISBH case has been commendable, marked by significant progress in rescuing children, charging perpetrators, and identifying and/or seizing domestic and overseas assets—all within just a month, while adhering to due process under the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the invocation of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 to rearrest 58 individuals undermines this commitment.
The police had already been investigating multiple leads early in the GISBH case, including human trafficking. By mid-September, investigations pointed to organised criminal activities, with detailed updates on the group’s modus operandi shared with the public. During this time, remand extensions were granted for the 58 individuals to facilitate ongoing investigations. There is, therefore, no legitimate need for the use of SOSMA in this case, as the police would have had adequate time to gather the necessary evidence to proceed with charges under the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act and Section 130V of the Penal Code.
The ongoing challenges in addressing increasingly complex organised crime and terrorism—compounded by factors such as advancements in technology and fast-evolving criminal networks—require a nuanced approach. However, cracking down on those involved at the expense of fair trial standards is not the way forward. The use of SOSMA in the GISBH case builds on dangerous precedents established within the past two years. More importantly, it diverts attention from the critical need for capacity-building that enhances police resilience in tackling fast-evolving crime methods, enabling them to conduct effective investigations whilst upholding the right to fair trial. This over-reliance on punitive measures via SOSMA can also dilute long-term crime prevention efforts - in the GISBH case, implementation of robust monitoring and early-stage intervention mechanisms by law enforcement and religious authorities. Prioritising these long-term strategies, which strengthen institutional capacities to combat organised crime and terrorism, would render the retention and use of SOSMA unnecessary, fostering political will to repeal this procedural law.
While addressing the complex challenges posed by organised crime and terrorism, Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution must also decisively on SOSMA reforms, rather than defending its continued use in the GISBH case. Recommendations for SOSMA amendments have been on the table since August last year, submitted to the Home Ministry after extensive stakeholder consultations led by the Prime Minister’s Department on Law and Institutional Reform. Despite these efforts, Saifuddin has yet to act on the necessary amendments, among which included the critical issue of bail for detainees. Instead of justifying SOSMA’s application, his focus should now shift towards expediting these reforms, ensuring justice is served without compromising fundamental rights to fair trial.
Comments