By Kanwal Tariq Hameed
Published: 11th September 2006
AMENDMENTS to the political rights law which bans people jailed for crimes from ever standing in council or parliamentary elections, was criticised by activists yesterday. They say the fact that it includes people jailed by state security courts during unrest in the 1990s will lead to increased distrust.
The amendments, passed by Parliament and the Shura Council in July, stipulate that people jailed for crimes will not be allowed to vote for five years after their release and will be banned for life from standing in council or parliamentary elections.
By Kanwal Tariq Hameed
Published: 11th September 2006
AMENDMENTS to the political rights law which bans people jailed for crimes from ever standing in council or parliamentary elections, was criticised by activists yesterday. They say the fact that it includes people jailed by state security courts during unrest in the 1990s will lead to increased distrust.
The amendments, passed by Parliament and the Shura Council in July, stipulate that people jailed for crimes will not be allowed to vote for five years after their release and will be banned for life from standing in council or parliamentary elections.
Those given special pardons will be able to stand for elections after 10 years.
The issue was raised at a seminar conducted last night by independent political activists Abdulaziz Abul and Mohammed Ahmed.
It was organised by Al Wefaq National Islamic Society, at its premises in Gufool.
“First of all what is the necessity of introducing such amendments to the law – what are the circumstances that are necessitating this?” Mr Abul told the GDN ahead of the seminar.
“We don’t see any circumstances that would require such an amendment, which would discriminate against a large segment of youth who were political activists in the 1990s, only because of their political inclination.
“If we take into consideration that Bahrain has just started, four years ago, a process of reform and national reconciliation, this would have a negative impact on the relationship between the state and the people.
Depriving those who were “punished” in the 1990s would only “increase distrust”, said Mr Abul.
“Why do we need to stop people from practising their rights because of the past?” he asked.
“Any laws that have retrogressive effects are not needed,” he said.
“The fundamental cause of law is not to penalise people for what they have done before it was made, it is after a law has been passed that a penalty becomes applicable.”
The law carries issues from a period prior to reforms initiated in 2002 into current politics, said Dr Abul.
This is in “direct contradiction” to royal Decree 56, which protects security officers and state officials from being prosecuted or punished for human rights abuses committed before 2001, he added.
“The government would prevent people from calling on the courts to penalise people for conducting crimes of torture by saying that ‘it is the past, we don’t want to open that door’, but they use the same circumstance to punish people,” he said.
“In legal terms this is double jeopardy, because if you penalise one person, you cannot penalise him twice – you cannot deprive him of his liberty and his rights (after he has served his sentence).”
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=155390&Sn=BNEW&IssueID=29175©
Gulf Daily News
