Opinion - Editorials   

The end of an ordeal

The dropping of terrorism charges against Mohammed Haneef, which should end his 26- day ordeal, is a matter of great relief even as it occasions outrage and concern over the conduct of the Australian Federal Police (AFP), the criminal justice system, and the Government in Canberra. After two weeks of initial detention, little more emerged than the fact that on his departure from the United Kingdom, he had given his unexpired mobile phone SIM card to his cousin who is one o f the suspects in the U.K. This was transformed into a charge of recklessly providing to a terrorist organisation support or resources that would help it in its terrorist activity under Section 102.7 (2) of the Australian Criminal Code Act, 1995. Unimpressed by the material the AFP had in support of this contrived charge, the magistrate had no hesitation in granting him bail. What turned the tide of public opinion within Australia and raised serious concern in India was a move by Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews that made a mockery of the bail order: the executive decision prolonged Dr. Haneef’s detention by cancelling his visa on the ground that, going by the information provided by the AFP, he failed the ‘character test’ for immigrants because of his association with terrorists.

It is to the credit of the Australian media, members of the bar, and human rights groups that their relentless search for the truth brought to light several flaws in the AFP’s investigation. The review by the Federal Director of Public Prosecutions that followed the media exposure and the public outcry revealed at least two ‘errors’ in the case. First, the AFP claimed that the SIM card Dr. Haneef had left behind was found in the burning car at the Glasgow airport when, in fact, it had been found in his cousin Sabeel Ahmed’s house. Secondly, the AFP asserted that he had been living with his cousins who are suspects in the U.K. when, in fact, he had been living in a house with other doctors. Far from being unintended errors, such assertions would appear to be a part of a dishonest attempt to suggest that the police had material going beyond a mere family relationship with the suspects in the U.K. and to place him in closer proximity to the terrorist act than the facts would bear out. Dr. Haneef’s is a textbook case of the abuse that tough anti-terrorism laws so easily lend themselves to at the hands of an insensitive police and of the unending harassment that the innocent are subjected to because of their accidental association with suspects. It is some consolation that the charges were withdrawn by the Director of Public Prosecutions and Dr. Haneef was not subjected to a prolonged trial. The Government of India, and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, did well to voice their concern and seek fair treatment for Dr. Haneef. The Australian Government, which remains unapologetic, could have shown greater grace. The least Mr. Andrews ought to do now is to revoke his cancellation of the visa — with an unqualified apology — to enable Dr. Haneef to do whatever he wishes to do without the least hint of any taint. Failure to do the just and decent thing by restoring the visa immediately could snowball into a bilateral issue between the two countries.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

The end of an ordeal
Floor test the only way
Two missions for the 60th anniversary
Abe’s fall from grace
Corrections and clarifications
Goa crisis
Unfortunate
Welcome
“This is as good a text as one can possibly get”

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu