UNC files lawsuit against Terror Act

In a constitutional motion filed in the High Court, San Fernando, the Opposition stated that the Act could be misused to arrest "political opponents" on the pretext that they are suspected terrorists.

Filed in the name of Fyzabad MP Chandresh Sharma, the motion seeks to have the court strike down several sections of the Act because of their drastic nature. It condemned the Act as unconstitutional, illegal, null and void.

The Anti-Terrorism Act was initiated by the present Government after the September 11 World Trade Centre bombing in New York, USA. The Opposition UNC voted against the Bill which was, however, passed in Parliament. It was only assented to this year by the President of the Republic.

The motion stated that the Act contravenes Sections four and five of the Constitution because it was not passed in accordance with a specified majority. Section 23 of the Act, the motion stated, allows arbitrary detention of a person without invoking due process of law.

The Act also allows for a person to be interrogated and to be denied the right to file a habeas corpus motion for release. The motion also stated that a person arrested under the Act is compelled to answer questions under oath, even where answers are incriminating.

Filed by attorney Imran Khan, instructing Anand Ramlogan, the motion contended that the Act allowed the property of a person to be seized, controlled, managed or forfeited without the State having to prove there is a breach of criminal law.

The motion objects to that section of the Act which states that the State could deem one’s property to be terrorist property.

A case management conference on the motion filed by Sharma will be held in the High Court, San Fernando, on November 10.