Suspek Kes LTTE Tidak Dapat Perbicaraan Adil di Bawah SOSMA, Kata Peguam
Suspects in LTTE Case Cannot Get a Fair Trial Under SOSMA, Says Lawyer

Verified Media Coverage of This Case

This legal issue was reported by Malaysian media in relation to the prosecution of individuals alleged to have links with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), and the application of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) to their cases.

All the links below refer to the same matter in which Sivahnanthan Ragava appeared to have given a legal opinion, publicly raising concerns about the fairness of SOSMA proceedings.

For transparency and public verification, the original report can be accessed here:

Malaysiakini (English) — Suspects in LTTE case cannot obtain fair trial under SOSMA, say lawyers
https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/499178

Case Synopsis

(Malaysia — November 2019)

In November 2019, serious constitutional and procedural concerns were raised over the use of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) in the prosecution of individuals accused of having links to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

In the Malaysiakini report, Lawyer Sivahnanthan Ragava, publicly explained that the problem with SOSMA goes far beyond extended remand. According to him, the entire structure of the Act makes it almost impossible for an accused person to receive a fair trial.

He pointed out that once a case is brought under SOSMA, the accused is no longer protected by the ordinary safeguards found in the Criminal Procedure Code and Evidence Act. Instead, SOSMA introduces special procedures that, in his words, tilt the entire trial process in favour of the prosecution.

Among the key issues highlighted by Sivahnanthan Ragava in the article were:

• That SOSMA overrides normal criminal procedure, removing many of the legal protections that accused persons rely on to defend themselves effectively.

• That the prosecution may rely on protected witnesses and undisclosed evidence, preventing the defence from meaningfully challenging testimony.

• That intercepted communications and hearsay-type evidence can be admitted without the strict safeguards normally required in criminal trials.

• That the defence is often placed in an impossible position, forced to respond to allegations without full access to the material being relied upon.

He further stressed that even if an accused person is eventually acquitted, SOSMA allows the prosecution to continue appealing and seeking extended detention, resulting in individuals spending years in custody without a final determination of guilt.

In his remarks, Sivahnanthan Ragava emphasised that this reality contradicts the most basic principle of criminal justice — that every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. He warned that under SOSMA, the process itself becomes the punishment, long before any court has ruled on the evidence.

Rather than being a criticism of enforcement alone, his comments were directed at the systemic imbalance created by SOSMA, urging lawmakers, courts, and the public to re-examine whether such extraordinary powers remain compatible with constitutional guarantees of fairness and due process.

Significance of This Case Feature

This case feature demonstrates that:

• SOSMA’s impact on accused persons extends far beyond detention periods and into the very heart of trial fairness.

• Special security laws must be constantly tested against constitutional principles of justice and equality before the law.

• Defence lawyers play a crucial role not only in courtrooms, but also in public legal advocacy, ensuring that the realities of criminal procedure are properly understood.

• The debate surrounding SOSMA remains one of the most important conversations in Malaysia’s criminal justice landscape.

This media feature stands as a record of how Sivahnanthan Ragava, as defence counsel, continues to advocate for fairness and due process even in cases governed by the most stringent criminal laws.