M’sia already has sufficient laws to address security threats: Expert

PETALING JAYA: The government’s plan to review the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (Sosma) has sparked fresh debate over whether political will exists to deliver meaningful reform or even repeal the controversial law.

Former Malaysia Bar president Tan Sri Salim Bashir said while Sosma, enacted in 2012 to tackle serious threats to national security and public order, has been defended as necessary, it remains a “draconian” law that erodes the right to a fair trial and undermines the rule of law.

He added that Sosma bypasses crucial safeguards in the Criminal Procedure Code, the Evidence Act 1950 and other legislation.

“Among its most troubling provisions are Section 13, which bars bail; Section 4 which allows detention of up to 28 days without early judicial oversight and Section 17 which relaxes strict evidentiary requirements.”

He also criticised the law’s use of protected witnesses, limitations on cross-examination and weaker protections for confessions.

“There must be political will to repeal Sosma, as Malaysia already has sufficient laws under the Penal Code, Prevention of Terrorism Act and Prevention of Crime Act to deal with security threats, provided the laws are properly coordinated and enforced.”

While welcoming the government’s review, including a proposed amendment to Section 13 on bail, Salim emphasised that courts must retain full discretion over bail decisions.

“Any move that limits the court’s powers undermines the separation of powers. National security is important, but it must align with constitutional guarantees of a fair trial and the rule of law.”

Former Selangor Bar chairman Kokila Vaani Vadiveloo said Sosma contains systemic flaws that allow prolonged detention without early judicial scrutiny, restricts access to bail and limits transparency.

She also criticised the lack of regular parliamentary reporting on Sosma’s use and minimal judicial oversight during detention, which weakens the separation of powers and creates conditions for misuse.

“If left unaddressed, the current trajectory risks normalising extraordinary security powers in ordinary or borderline cases, lowering the threshold for detention without trial and gradually eroding constitutional safeguards.

“Over time, this could erode public trust, chill civil liberties and undermine the rule of law.”

She singled out Section 5, which allows police to delay a detainee’s access to a lawyer for up to 48 hours as a direct conflict with Article 5 of the Federal Constitution.

“It shows how Sosma structurally permits executive discretion to override fundamental liberties.”

Kokila also said Malaysia’s existing criminal justice framework already provides sufficient tools to tackle serious and complex offences, including national security cases, without exceptional laws that concentrate power in the executive.

“From a rule-of-law perspective, national security cannot justify measures that systematically erode fundamental liberties, as this ultimately weakens democratic governance.”

She said if retained, Sosma should be a measure of last resort, with clear limits, early judicial oversight and special safeguards for minors.

She also highlighted Section 14, which permits anonymous witness testimony, as a priority for reform.

“Witness protection is important, but such measures must be tightly controlled and reserved for exceptional circumstances.

“Courts should provide detailed, reasoned findings on the necessity of anonymous testimony and the accused should have meaningful opportunities to challenge its credibility and reliability.”

Kokila added that strengthening the procedural safeguards would help balance the state’s security interests with individual rights and restore public confidence in the justice system.

 The Sun Malaysia