Amnesty International and Asylum Access Malaysia, in my opinion, must commence a formal Contempt of Court application - thus giving the opportunity for the court to consider and decide.
To expect the court(the Judge) to initiate on its own contempt proceedings against the the DG of Immigration and government is possible but will the court do this on their own...
Will the Attorney General initiate contempt proceedings like what he did for the Malaysiakini case. Noting that the AG also is the 'government's lawyer', the chances may be slim..
Hence, maybe it may be best for Amnesty International and Asylum Access Malaysia, the applicants in this Judicial Review action to file a formal application starting contempt proceedings against the DG of Immigration...[As I had pointed out in the earlier post, this will not be the first time contempt proceedings will be initiated against the DG of Immigration - see Contempt of Court against DG of Immigration for deporting migrants despite court order? Recalling the 2001 contempt action against DG Immigration?
THE CONTEMPT OF COURT here, is very different from the Malaysiakini contempt..
Here, there is a COURT ORDER - and despite the court order, the 1,086 'undocumented migrants' were send back to Myanmar(Burma) - The order was not vague...it was clear. It was simply do not send the 1,200 from Malaysia ... The worry, how many of those send back were legitimate REFUGEES or Asylum Seekers - they were sent back to the country they were fleeing from...
Refugees are people who have fled war, violence, conflict or persecution and have crossed an international border to find safety in another country....The 1951 Refugee Convention is a key legal document and defines a refugee as: “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.”
The Malaysiakini contempt was very different - that was an archaic contempt of 'scandalizing the court/judiciary' - it concerned expressions about judges/courts generally... This 'scandalizing the court/judiciary' contempt, by the way, has been abolished in UK.
This issue of 'breaching the court order' and sending out of Malaysia was raised in court on 24/2/2020.
23/2/2021 - High Court judge Datuk Seri Mariana Yahya granted a stay order to temporarily suspend the government’s plans to deport the 1,200 Myanmar citizens, as she was to hear the lawsuit morning of 24/2/2021 at 10am.
23/2/2021 - Immigration Department of Malaysia yesterday announced — just hours later after the court’s stay order was issued — that it had along with other Malaysian authorities and the Myanmar embassy successfully repatriated 1,086 Myanmar citizens whom it described as “illegal immigrants” to Myanmar.
24/2/2021 - High Court hears lawsuit filed through judicial review by rights group Amnesty International Malaysia and Asylum Access Malaysia.
- Extension of the Interim Stay granted yesterday is allowed for the remainder from the 1,200 who have not been deported till March 9.
When the breach of the court order was raised, it is reported that the Judge said will deal with it on March 9th...
...that the issue of the Malaysian government’s deportation of the 1,086 individuals — despite the court’s stay order yesterday — was raised in the hearing today, but said the High Court will first decide on the application for leave for judicial review before deciding whether to ask for an explanation on the deportation move yesterday....
Did Malaysia send back to the country they fled from REFUGEES and asylum seekers? What happened to the CARING Malaysian government - comparatively the former BN and PH PLUS government was more caring -- compared to PM Muhyiddin's PN Plus government (made up of UMNO, PAS, BN, Gerakan, etc...).
I believe that the court application was, amongst others, to give the UNHCR(UN Refugee Agency) opportunity to vet these undocumented migrants to determine who were 'refugees' or 'asylum seekers' before sending them back to Burma/Myanmmar - after that, Malaysia could send all the just 'undocumented migrants' back to their home countries - I think that was reasonable, and certainly will ensure that Malaysia not send back to countries of origin persons who really are refugees and asylum seekers.
Malaysia really must have a Malaysian law enacted on REFUGEE, ASYLUM SEEKERS AND STATELESS PERSONS - the law will not only recognize these categories of persons in Malaysia, but will also provide clear procedure in how Malaysia deals with them. It may also provide for rights/restrictions imposed on this category of persons. Then, Malaysia, without reliance of UNHCR, through this law's enforcement bodies speedily determine WHO really are refugees/asylum seekers and/or stateless persons, and what to do with them.
HAS THERE BEEN ANY APOLOGY?
APOLOGY - Did the DG of Immigration and the government of Malaysia apologize yet to the Court for disobeying the court order? Was there even an 'explanation' why they still send them off despite the court order? - from what I saw, the post repatriation statement did not even mention any court order...
Will the Federal Counsel at court may now suddenly take the BLAME - maybe he 'failed' to tell the government or DG Immigration of the order fast enough, before the people were already sent off beyond Malaysia's jurisdiction...
This is a matter that cannot be 'swept under the carpet' - Do government have to obey court orders? Does the fact that Malaysia is under EMERGENCY mean that the government does not have to OBEY court orders?
ISSUES
- Is the Malaysian government and the Immigration Department FREE to ignore Court Orders?
- What is the COURT's response when its orders are disobeyed by the Immigration Department and Government?
- If the government and/or its officers are NOT BOUND by Court Orders, then ...
As it is, in my opinion, it may be best for the applicants to initiate contempt proceedings now, without hoping for others to do it.
Once this is done, then we get a chance to see what the Court does - will leave for contempt proceedings be granted? Will the Court find the action of sending away some of the 1,200 despite a court order a 'contempt of court' or not?
What the Malaysian Judiciary does now will impact perception?
After 1,086 Myanmar nationals repatriated, High Court extends order to suspend further deportations until March 9 decision on lawsuit
Subscribe to our Telegram channel for the latest updates on news you need to know.
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 24 — The High Court here today stayed the Malaysian government’s deportation of the remainder of the original 1,200 Myanmar nationals referred to in a lawsuit until the matter was decided.
Yesterday, High Court judge Datuk Seri Mariana Yahya granted a stay order to temporarily suspend the government’s plans to deport the 1,200 Myanmar citizens, as she was to hear the lawsuit this morning at 10am.
The Malaysian government had been planning to repatriate the 1,200 Myanmar citizens on three navy ships provided by the Myanmar military yesterday afternoon.
The Immigration Department of Malaysia yesterday announced — just hours later after the court’s stay order was issued — that it had along with other Malaysian authorities and the Myanmar embassy successfully repatriated 1,086 Myanmar citizens whom it described as “illegal immigrants” to Myanmar.
This morning, in an online hearing from 10am to about 1pm, the High Court had heard the lawsuit filed through judicial review by rights group Amnesty International Malaysia and Asylum Access Malaysia.
The hearing was on the leave for judicial review application by both Amnesty International Malaysia and Asylum Access Malaysia.
Following the hearing, the two groups’ lawyer New Sin Yew told Malay Mail that the High Court has fixed March 9 to deliver its decision on the leave application.
“Meanwhile extension of the Interim Stay granted yesterday is allowed for the remainder from the 1,200 who have not been deported till March 9,” he said.
New confirmed that the issue of the Malaysian government’s deportation of the 1,086 individuals — despite the court’s stay order yesterday — was raised in the hearing today, but said the High Court will first decide on the application for leave for judicial review before deciding whether to ask for an explanation on the deportation move yesterday.
New told Malay Mail that the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) had in the online hearing today objected to the application for leave for judicial review by Amnesty International Malaysia and Asylum Access Malaysia, based on the grounds of whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the lawsuit and whether the two groups had locus standi or legal standing to file such a lawsuit.
In the judicial review application filed on February 22 by Amnesty International Malaysia and Asylum Access Malaysia via applicants Asylum Access Berhad and Aimal Sdn Bhd, the three respondents named were the Malaysian Immigration director-general, the home minister and the federal government.
The judicial review bid by Amnesty International Malaysia and Asylum Access Malaysia includes the names and details of three United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) document holders and 17 minors who had at least one parent still in Malaysia.
The two groups had wanted the court to cancel the respondents’ decision to deport the three UNHCR document holders recognised as refugees, quash the respondents’ decision to deport the 17 children, and quash the respondents’ decision to deport the 1,200 detained Myanmar nationals back to their home country.
The two rights groups also asked the court to issue three separate prohibition orders against the respondents disallowing the deporting of the three UNHCR-recognised refugees, the 17 children and the 1,200 persons.
Today, New confirmed that the lawyers for Amnesty International Malaysia and Asylum Access Malaysia do not have information yet on who were the 1,200 Myanmar nationals who had been detained and which of them were part of the 1,086 deported yesterday to Myanmar, also confirming that the lawyers do not yet have information on the exact time of deportation yesterday of the 1,086 individuals.
The current status of the 17 children and the three UNHCR-recognised refugees named and listed in the lawsuit are unknown for now, with no information yet on if they were or were not part of the 1,086 deported yesterday.
New also said lawyers for the two rights groups had during the online hearing today said that the Malaysian government should disclose information on who were the 1,200 Myanmar nationals who had been detained and which of them were part of the 1,086 persons deported yesterday.
In the initial stay order issued by the High Court yesterday and sighted by Malay Mail, it had specified the names of the 17 children and the three UNHCR-recognised refugees and also referred to the 1,200 individuals collectively.
The High Court had in the stay order yesterday ordered a suspension of the respondents’ decision or action to deport the three to Myanmar, as well as the suspension of similar decisions or actions by Malaysian authorities to deport the 17 children to Myanmar, and the suspension of similar decisions or actions to deport the 1,200 other individuals, until the court decides on the application for leave for judicial review.
The Immigration Department’s announcement yesterday on the deportation of the 1,086 persons did not say what time the repatriation exercise was carried out or completed, and did not touch on the lawsuit or the stay order granted yesterday.
The Immigration Department had however insisted that the 1,086 Myanmar citizens were repatriated to Myanmar voluntarily without being forced to do so by everyone, also asserting that those of the Rohingya ethnicity or asylum seekers were not part of the 1,086 deported. The 1,086 had been detained in immigration detention centres nationwide since 2020, the department had said.
The Malaysian authorities’ move yesterday to deport the 1,086 individuals despite an unresolved court case has drawn stern criticism, including from federal Opposition MPs, as well as human rights groups.
Amnesty International Malaysia yesterday highlighted the
uncertainties and risks that the 1,086 would face upon their return amid
political uncertainties in Myanmar, noting that the UNHCR has been
denied access to Malaysia’s immigration detention centres since August
2019 and was not given a chance to access the 1,200 to check if any of
them are registered refugees or asylum seekers. - Malay Mail, 24/2/2021
Malaysia Under Fire After Myanmar Deportation
The United States (US) on Wednesday led criticism of Malaysia for deporting more than 1,000 Myanmar nationals back to their military-ruled nation in defiance of a court order.
The migrants, who activists say include vulnerable asylum seekers, departed Tuesday on Myanmar navy ships from a Malaysian military base just weeks after a coup.
Rights groups had fiercely criticised the plan, and hours before the deportation the Kuala Lumpur High Court ordered it be temporarily halted to allow a legal challenge from activists.
The United States, which under President Joe Biden has ramped back up refugee admissions and sought to rally pressure to reverse Myanmar's coup, said it was "concerned" by the move by Malaysia, with which Washington has enjoyed largely friendly relations in recent years.
State Department spokesman Ned Price said that the military in Myanmar, also known as Burma, "has a long-documented history of human rights abuses against members of religious and ethnic minority groups".
Price noted that Malaysia went ahead "in spite of a Malaysian court order barring their deportation and in light of ongoing unrest in Burma that of course has been taking place since the coup".
"We continue to urge all countries in the region contemplating returning Burmese migrants back to Burma to halt those repatriations until the UNHCR can assess whether these migrants have any protection concerns," Price told reporters in Washington, referring to the UN refugee agency.
Officials offered no explanation as to why they ignored the court's instructions and sent back the 1,086 migrants.
'Dangerous Deportations'
In a joint statement, four opposition lawmakers condemned the "inhumane" deportation and suggested government officials could be held in contempt for ignoring the legal ruling.
"This act... is a clear display that the Malaysian government does not respect the ongoing court process and has put Malaysia in a bad light on the human rights front," they said.
Amnesty International, one of the groups that challenged the deportation, said the government "owes an explanation to the people of Malaysia as to why they chose to defy the court order".
"These dangerous deportations have not been properly scrutinised and put individuals at grave risk," said Katrina Jorene Maliamauv, executive director of Amnesty's Malaysia office.
More than 100 migrants originally to be deported are believed to have been left behind, with officials offering no explanation as to why. On Wednesday the High Court ruled those remaining should not be sent back as NGOs challenge the repatriation.
Malaysian immigration officials insisted there were no members of the persecuted Rohingya minority - not recognised as citizens in Myanmar - or asylum seekers among those repatriated.
But rights groups have raised doubts over authorities' claims there were no asylum seekers among the deportees.
Authorities have since 2019 blocked the UNHCR from immigration detention centres, meaning they cannot assess which migrants have genuine asylum claims and should be allowed to remain in Malaysia.
It is rare for NGOs to challenge repatriations but in the latest
case, they were particularly concerned about the worsening human rights
situation in Myanmar since the coup. - AFP - The ASEAN Post, 25/2/2021
EU, US, rights groups criticise Malaysia for deportations to Myanmar
KUALA LUMPUR (REUTERS, AFP) - The European Union on Thursday (Feb 25) joined the United States in expressing concern over Malaysia’s mass deportation this week of Myanmar nationals after a military coup in defiance of a court order halting the plan.
The migrants, who activists say include vulnerable asylum seekers, departed Tuesday on Myanmar navy ships from a Malaysian military base just weeks after a coup.
Rights groups had fiercely criticised the plan, and hours before the deportation the Kuala Lumpur High Court ordered it be temporarily halted to allow a legal challenge from activists.
The European Union said it "deeply regretted" Malaysian authorities’ move to proceed with the deportation despite the court order and was also concerned by the use of naval vessels.
"We would have expected the Malaysian authorities to respect the decision of the Malaysian court, and we stress the importance of respect for international law and the principle of non-refoulement," a EU spokesperson told Reuters.
The bloc said it had earlier urged Malaysia to drop the plan.
The United States, which under President Joe Biden has ramped back up refugee admissions and sought to rally pressure to reverse Myanmar's coup, said it was "concerned" by the move by Malaysia, with which Washington has enjoyed largely friendly relations in recent years.
State Department spokesman Ned Price said that the military in Myanmar, also known as Burma, "has a long documented history of human rights abuses against members of religious and ethnic minority groups".
Mr Price noted that Malaysia went ahead "in spite of a Malaysian court order barring their deportation and in light of ongoing unrest in Burma that of course has been taking place since the coup".
"We continue to urge all countries in the region contemplating returning Burmese migrants back to Burma to halt those repatriations until the UNHCR can assess whether these migrants have any protection concerns," Mr Price told reporters in Washington, referring to the UN refugee agency.
Officials offered no explanation as to why they ignored the court's instructions and sent back the 1,086 migrants.
In a joint statement, four opposition lawmakers condemned the "inhumane" deportation and suggested government officials could be held in contempt for ignoring the legal ruling.
"This act... is a clear display that the Malaysian government does not respect the ongoing court process and has put Malaysia in a bad light on the human rights front," they said.
Amnesty International, one of the groups that challenged the deportation, said the government "owes an explanation to the people of Malaysia as to why they chose to defy the court order".
"These dangerous deportations have not been properly scrutinised and put individuals at grave risk," said ms Katrina Jorene Maliamauv, executive director of Amnesty's Malaysia office.
More than 100 migrants originally to be deported are believed to have been left behind, with officials offering no explanation as to why. On Wednesday the High Court ruled those remaining should not be sent back as NGOs challenge the repatriation.
Malaysian immigration officials insisted there were no members of the persecuted Rohingya minority - not recognised as citizens in Myanmar - or asylum seekers among those repatriated.
But rights groups have raised doubts over authorities' claims there were no asylum seekers among the deportees.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment