By Neena Bhandari, IANS
Sydney : Was there a “secret plan” to keep Muhammad Haneef behind bars? Yes, according to an email received by the Indian doctor’s lawyer showing a contingency plan between Australia’s immigration department and the police to keep him in jail even after he was granted bail.
he opposition Australian Labour Party renewed its call for a judicial inquiry into the case after The Australian newspaper Friday revealed an email, obtained by Haneef’s lawyer Peter Russo under Freedom of Information laws.
The email said: “Contingencies for containing Mr Haneef and detaining him under the Migration Act, if it was the case he was granted bail on Monday, were in place as per arrangements today.”
Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd told the Australian Broadcasting Corp: “… I think there is a mounting case in terms of ministerial mismanagement of this matter, we must get to the bottom of it, and therefore a judicial inquiry is appropriate.”
Rudd said: “I’ve said again, if we form the next government of Australia, there will be one. We need to get to the bottom of this.”
The 27-year-old doctor was incarcerated for three weeks after being charged with supporting a terrorist organisation by “recklessly” giving his mobile phone SIM card to people planning the London and Glasgow bomb.
The charges were later dropped and he returned to his family in Bangalore after the Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews cancelled his 457 work visa.
While Andrews has denied he had any knowledge of the email, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) has said it was part of “normal operational contingency planning”.
Andrews has all along argued that the decision to revoke Haneef’s visa was “unrelated to the question of proceedings in the criminal court in Brisbane”.
A spokesperson for Andrews was quoted in The Australian as saying the minister had “absolutely not” been involved in any “contingency” plan to thwart the Brisbane magistrate Jacqui Payne, who gave Haneef bail on July 16.
“It’s not our email and it’s not something that we considered beforehand. My answer would be that the police can explain their correspondence to and from each other but there was absolutely no deal or arrangement or contingency instigated, approved, or discussed by the minister or any of his staff at all, ever.”
Haneef’s lawyer, Peter Russo, told the newspaper: “I’m concerned about it. Obviously it’s apparent that there was communication about pulling his visa prior to the magistrate handing down her decision.”
Describing the emails as “a very significant piece in the jigsaw of information”, he called on AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty, Andrews and anyone else who knew of the secret contingency plan to “come clean and explain exactly what discussions did take place”.
Leading barristers Julian Burnside told this weekend’s ABC’s Sunday Profile programme: “What it shows is that at least two days before the bail magistrate ruled that Dr Haneef was entitled to bail, the Federal Police had arranged that the visa would be revoked if necessary, in order to make sure he remain in custody. I think that is the clearest indication yet that he misused his power.”