Elias Hj Idris
Bukit Aman's Criminal Investigations Department (CID) today issued a warrant against SARAWAK REPORT's CLARE REWCASTLE-BROWN and said it was seeking INTERPOL's assistance to detain Clare, who is a UK citizen.

In a brief statement this evening, CID director Mohmad Salleh said the police would also proceed with applications to place Clare on the Aseanapol wanted list as well as the Interpol red notice.
Section 124B states:

Whoever, by any means, directly or indirectly, commits an activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years.
Whereas 124I states:
Any person who, by word of mouth or in writing or in any newspaper, periodical, book, circular, or other printed publication or by any other means including electronic means spreads false reports or makes false statements likely to cause public alarm, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years.

Clare Rewcastle Brown's Response
Sarawak Report editor and founder Clare Rewcastle-Brown today said that she is unfazed by the Malaysian police's issuance of an arrest warrant against her.
" Am I quaking in my shoes... actually not," she told The Malaysian Insider today.
Clare said that the authorities' move was "ridiculous".
She also said that the recent moves by the Malaysian government has resulted in her getting plenty of media attention and that she was "not likely" to be praising Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.
Clare also said that the authorities' actions merely indicates that Malaysia is on the path to become a "FAILED STATE".

Clare said,
"If they want to cement Malaysia in the category of basket case, failed state, then this is absolutely the path to take.
" I am merely an investigative journalist who has been doing my job, by unravelling one hell of an international scandal involving people in high places and the grand larceny of public monies.
"I am still unclear whether the agents of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak are accusing me of 'forging false documents' or obtaining documents through 'criminal leakages', since they have simultaneously accused me of both in the past few days and have been rounding up all sorts of senior investigators to try and find out who might have passed me such leaks.
"They need to make up their minds about this before they bring their charges and they really ought to produce some substantive and convincing evidence of their other accusation that I am part of some international plot intent on falsely accusing the prime minister of crimes for reasons unknown," Rewcastle Brown said in a statement released in response to the warrant issued for her arrest.
"I am merely an investigative journalist who has been doing my job, by unravelling one hell of an international scandal involving people in high places and the grand larceny of public monies."

Her website was already blocked by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) on July 19, citing national stability concerns.

Since early this year, she had published a series of damning exposes against state investment arm 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) and those behind it, including Najib. – August 4, 2015.
NEUTRALITY (Article 3 of the Constitution)


INTERPOL, is an international police organisation with the primary aim of advancing international police cooperation.
On account of its very diverse membership, it was very early on (1946) determined that its focus would be the prevention of and combatting of ordinary law crimes, AS OPPOSED TO POLITICAL, MILITARY, RELIGIOUS AND RACIAL CRIMES.
The resolve to limit the Organisation’s engagement to ordinary law crimes is grounded in Article 2 and Article 3 of the Constitution.
According to Article 3 of INTERPOL’s Constitution:
“It is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN for the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a POLITICAL, MILITARY, RELIGIOUS, OR RACIAL CHARACTER. "
The primary objectives of Article 3 are to ensure :
a) the Organisation’s independence and neutrality- as reaffirmed by Resolution AG-2006-RES-04,
b) to reflect international extradition law and c) to protect individuals from persecution.
In order to implement Article 3 consistently and in recognition of the existence of what are termed purely political, military, religious and racial offences, but also the occurrence of ordinary law crimes within a political, military, religious and racial context, the Organisation adopted the predominance test (Resolution AGN/20/RES/11).
The application of this test is done on a case by case basis to determine whether the political, military, religious or racial elements dominate in the given case.
The interpretation of Article 3 follows the developments of international law in general and extradition law in particular.
In 1984 INTERPOL’s General Assembly adopted a Resolution (Resolution AGN/53/RES/7) which made it possible for the Organisation to engage, under certain circumstances, in cases related to terrorism.
This position, adopted despite the fact that terrorism remains inherently political, is aligned with developments in international extradition practice:
Terrorism is no longer considered a political offence for purposes of extradition, thereby falling outside the political offence exception in international extradition law. The scope of INTERPOL’s engagement in terrorist offences was expanded to include the charge of membership in terrorist organisations in 2004 (Resolution Ag-2004-RES-18).
A second noteworthy change of policy with regard to the interpretation of Article 3 took place in 1994, where INTERPOL’s General Assembly adopted a Resolution (Resolution AGN/63/RES/9) that enabled the Organisation to engage in cases concerning violations of international humanitarian law in specific circumstances.
This has allowed the Organisation to actively cooperate with the International Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and later on with additional tribunals such as the International Criminal Court. It also enables member countries to cooperate with one another in these cases using INTERPOL channels.
The PROHIBITION in Article 3 applies to the Organisation AS A WHOLE. This means ALL INTERPOL organs as well as its member countries MUST COMPLY with Article 3 with regard to any INTERPOL activity or any use of INTERPOL’s tools and services.
As provided in INTERPOL’s Rules on the Processing of Data (Art. 34) To determine whether a request falls within the ambit of Article 3, all relevant information related to the case is assessed, including the following elements:
- The nature of the offence, namely the charges and the underlying facts;
- The status of the person concerned;
- The identity of the source of data;
- The position expressed by another country or another international entity (such as an international tribunal);
- Obligations under international law;
Implications for the neutrality of the Organization; and
- The general context of the case;

Based on the long-standing experience in interpreting and implementing Article 3, a Repository of Practice on Article 3 was developed. The Repository provides GUIDANCE on the evolution and development of INTERPOL’s practice in application of Article 3 in a variety of circumstances, including offences committed by politicians and former politicians; offences committed in an unconstitutional seizure of power; offences with military, religious or racial aspects and offences against the security of the state.
0 Responses