obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf
unde: the same conditions as witnesses against him". The key
prosecution witness against me is one Ibrahim Jafaar who has been
given immunity from prosecution in return for his agreeing to
testify in the BMFL trial. By contrast, key witnesses on my
behalf are in Malaysia. If I am not given the opportunity to
be
present in Malaysia when their evidence is taken, I will in
effect be denied the opportunity to have my own witnesses
examined under the same conditions as the key witness against me,
namely Jafaar. I am advised and verily believe that this would
amount to a violation of Article 11(2)(e).
MY PREVIOUS APPLICATION
49. I should mention that I had sought to rely upon the "passage
of time" provision under EA Section 11(3)(b) in a previous habeas
application dated 2nd February 1990 which was refused by
this Honourable Court by its judgment dated 12th December 1990.
corpus
50. The principle points of argument before this Honourable Court
were, inter alia, the following matters:
(1)
because the accusation against me was not made in good
faith; it would be unjust or oppressive to return me under
Section 11 (3) (c) of the EA;
(2) a lapse of between 9 and 13 years between the
acts
21