Ten days after the detention of Indian doctor Mohammed Haneef at Brisbane on July 2 on "suspicions" of his link to the June terror plots in the United Kingdom, the singular message from Australia was that its security agencies found the going tough in an altogether uncharted territory. Until June 12, Haneef was still "in custody" but "not under arrest", under Australia's counter-terrorism laws. No charges were laid against him, but the authorities could not bring themselves to releasing him on that basis.
On July 13, a magistrate was expected to consider a plea by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to retain Haneef in custody for a further period. The AFP had earlier secured permission to prolong his extension on points of law or procedure. (The magistrate adjourned hearing on his bail petition by two days.)
As the case of "counter-terror caution" dragged on, the Australian government came under pressure to find its moorings quickly and set Haneef free if sustainable charges could not be brought against him. Civil rights groups in Australia raised a chorus of disapproval over the denial of personal liberty without transparent reasons and the perceived tardiness of the security agencies to rise to the occasion in what was admittedly a new "counter-terror" situation. Haneef's lawyer, Peter Russo, said the prime question was why his client should be detained in the absence of any charges. (The police subsequently charged Haneef with "reckless support" to a terrorist organisation.)
This prompted the AFP to say he was being given "privacy" and his needs of sunlight, food, exercise and related aspects were being met. On July 11, he was allowed to make a monitored call to his wife.
The investigators and their political superiors argued that the case was too "complex" to be judged by the usual practices of jurisprudence and personal liberties. Prime Minister John Howard emphasised that Haneef was entitled to "the presumption of innocence" until the AFP could make up its mind whether to bring terrorism charges against him or not.
On two counts, Howard's statements acquired a degree of importance far beyond the articulation of some first principles in law. First, discernible waves of a culture shock wafted across Australia as people began coming to grips with the reality that a foreigner in their midst, who had benefited from their hospitality, had been held under anti-terror laws. Haneef is the first person to be interrogated under these laws.
The circumstances of Haneef's detention dictated the second factor. Haneef had come from Liverpool in the UK to Brisbane several months ago to work as a medical professional at the Gold Coast Hospital. When the AFP intercepted him on the night of July 2 at the Brisbane airport, where he was to take a flight to Bangalore for a family reunion, he was holding the post of registrar at that hospital. In these circumstances, it became essential to state the obvious that he should be deemed innocent unless proved otherwise.
Two other aspects dominated the thinking of the investigators. At the level of "basic instincts" of intelligence sleuths, they could not but reckon with Haneef's perceived family ties with two of the suspects caught in the failed car-bombing "plots" in London and the "flaming attack" in Glasgow.
In fact, the AFP acted entirely on a tip-off from the British authorities in the case. It was based on the purported evidence that, at some point in the past, Haneef had left his mobile phone card with the suspects in the UK terror plots. This piece of connectivity soon faded from headlines in Australia, where the AFP made much of another aspect of potential "evidence".
It pursued Haneef on the basis of his presumable sense of urgency to leave Australia as the details of the UK "plots" were becoming known. Australia's Attorney-General Philip Ruddock underscored the perceived importance of Haneef's bid to leave for India on a one-way air ticket.
The AFP did not take the view that Haneef was trying to fly under the radar. Defending the delay in deciding whether to file charges or not, AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty said over 31,000 pages of documents gleaned from seized computer files had to be assessed.
Haneef was not the only Indian to be questioned by the AFP. His associate and fellow medical professional, Mohammed Asif Ali, and at least five other Indian doctors, four in Western Australia and one in New South Wales, were interrogated and set free.
Coincidentally, as Haneef remained neither freed not indicted, Australian Defence Minister Brendan Nelson visited India for talks on bilateral cooperation in the military domain. However, referring to the confusion over Haneef's status, Nelson said on July 12 that "this particular case ... will require us, perhaps, to develop some sort of a mutual arrangement".
P. S. SURYANARAYANACOMMents
COMMents
SHARE