A total of 38 of the 58 lawmakers and ministers voted in favor of the amendments, with one rejection and 9 abstentions.
The first amendment on Article 60 of the law states that no arrested person should in any way be detained prior to his trial for more than twenty-four hours without a written order from the investigator. The current law states that ‘No arrested person should in any way be detained prior to his trial for more than four days without a written order from the investigator’.
The second amendment is on Article 69 of the law which states ‘If it was felt that the interest of the investigation requires the detention of the accused to prevent him from escaping or to influence the course of the investigation the investigator may detain him for a period not exceeding seven days from the date of his arrest’.
The person in pre-trial detention may appeal against the decision of his remand before the head of concerned court to renew the detention and the head of the court must adjudicate the appeal within a period not exceeding 48 hours from the date of submission.
The accused must be sent to the head of the Court prior to the expiration of his incarceration to look in the issue of renewing the detention and the head of the court should order for the renewal of detention for a period not exceeding 10 days at any time that he would ask for, and that pre-trial detention should not exceed in any way 37 days from the date the accused is arrested and detention order should not be issued unless the statement of the accused is heard.
Influence
The current law states that ‘If it was felt that the interest of the investigation requires detention of the accused to prevent him from escaping or to influence the course of the investigation he may be detained for a period not exceeding seven days from the date of his arrest.
The accused must be sent to the judge of the court prior to the expiration of his incarceration in order to renew pre-trial detention and the head of the court should order for the renewal of the detention specifying in it the detention period that should not exceed 15 days at any time that he would ask for renewal of detention.
The third amendment is on Article 70 of the law which read ‘if the investigation deems it necessary to continue the detention of the accused for more that the period stipulated in the preceding article, it is not permissible to extend his detention except by order from the concerned court to consider the matter upon the request of the investigator and after hearing the statements of the accused and see the outcome of the investigation. The court’s order for renewal should be 30 days at a time up to a maximum of three months’.
The current law states ‘if the investigation deems it necessary to continue the detention of the accused for more that the period stipulated in the preceding article, it is not permissible to extend his detention except by order from the concerned court to consider the suit upon the request of the investigator and after hearing the statements of the accused and see the outcome of the investigation. The court’s order for renewal should be 30 days at a time.
Punishable
The fourth amendment is on Article 70 (repeated A) states ‘no accused person shall be detained if the incident was a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or by a fine or both.’
The current law reads ‘no accused shall be detained if the incident was a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or by a fine or both.’
The last amendment is made on Article 74 (repeated) which states ‘every accused that is detained by the police or detained for pre-trial, a written notification must be made to inform the reasons for the detention or imprisonment and he must also be given access to a lawyer and meet his lawyer in private at any time.’
The current law states, ‘every accused that is detained by the police or detained for pre-trial, a written notification must be made immediately to inform the reasons for the detention or imprisonment, otherwise the procedure is null and void, also the procedure is null and void if the accused is prevented from contacting one that he want to inform about what happened or from seeking help of a lawyer and meet his lawyer in private at any time.’
During the discussion, lawmakers stressed the importance of these amendments which will ensure fairness and eliminate current abusive practices of police during long detentions.
MP Abdul-Hamid Dashti pointed out the amendments to this law is very important in line with the Constitution and international declaration of human rights and international treaties. "So I wish this amendment should be unanimously approved," he said.
MP Jamaan Al-Harbash called for separating investigation department from the Interior Ministry because that will prevent military personnel from detaining and interrogating civilians just like what happened to Mohammed Al-Maimouni who died as a result of torture during his detention at one of the police stations.
Abuses
He also cited the example of cases of pre-trial detention of Kuwaiti writer Mohammed Abdul-Kader Jassem, Nahar Al-Hajiri who set fire to the Iranian flag, the bedoun and Syrians living in the country and pointed to the abuses contained in the current law which allows detention of a suspect for long period without trial.
MP Ahmed Lari affirmed violations have been committed during interrogations. "We are in a state of institutions, the Constitution and the law, so mistakes should be avoided during interrogations such as covering face.
"We need justice and application of the law because any mistake will affect the society as a whole, so I also support that the Investigation Department be separated from the Interior Ministry because it is not right for an opponent to be a referee at a same time.
MP Mubarak Waalan said the Interior Ministry’s behavior changed the law which says ‘an accused is innocent until proven guilty’ to ‘an accused is guilty until he is proven innocent’. He stressed the need to pass the amendment because we are in a state of institutions.
MP Musallam Al-Barrak pointed out 24 hours is enough for the interrogation authority to get information from a suspect instead of the current four days. He cited the securitymen used the four days to torture Mohammed Al-Maimouni and added: "We are living in a police state where people are humiliated by the Interior Ministry’s security apparatuses before taking them to the court."
MP Adel Al-Damkhi asserted the current law of pre-trial detention violates the international civil and political treaty and Kuwait Constitution. He added, "I have documents showing that a Bangladeshi was detained in a public prison for one-and-a-half years without trial.
"There are also Kuwaitis who spend months in prison. A detainee has the right to meet his family as enshrined in the international law," he said.
Earlier during the session, the Assembly postponed the first deliberation on the state’s third Development Plan for 2012/2013.
A large number of MPs complained they had not received the draft law from the government to review prior to the deliberation, while the Cabinet contended it had sent copies weeks ago to the Parliament.
MP Musallam Al-Barrak said discussions cannot occur on a bill which many MPs have not reviewed and requested, along with other lawmakers, to postpone the discussion to the next session.
However, some MPs wished to hear the government’s explanations without voting on the first deliberation.
Almost two hours of the session were spent debating whether to debate the development plan. Chairman of the Financial and Economic Affairs Committee, MP Marzooq Al-Ghanim urged the Assembly to hear the committee’s report, which rejects the Cabinet’s proposed plan.
He said he had invited all 49 MPs to attend a committee meeting to review the document, but only a few attended.
Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Planning and Development Affairs, Dr Fadhel Safar Ali Safar, also urged the Assembly to approve the bill in its first deliberation until amendments are made before a second round of voting.
Finally, even though the Majority Bloc MPs were divided on the issue, 27 MPs approved postponing the Development Plan to April 24 while 25 voted against the request and one abstained.
Attacked
Meanwhile, MP Musallam Al-Barrak verbally attacked Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Sheikh Sabah Khaled Al-Hamad Al-Sabah for failing to respond to his queries pertaining to the alleged illegal financial transfers among other issues.
Sheikh Sabah Khaled Al-Sabah, who is also Minister of State for Cabinet Affairs, had sent a letter requesting a leeway to respond to his queries.
Al-Barrak, however, wished to shed light on the issue and requested a few minutes to discuss the Foreign Minister’s request. Out of a 58 quorum, 37 MPs approved his request, 9 MPs rejected and two abstained.
He said his queries were sent to the previous Cabinet but were ignored. Apart from questions on the financial transfers, Al-Barrak said he inquired "on students who were rejected work within the ministry despite receiving outstanding grades" and on information that the government is allowing "embassies of poor countries to sell alcohol in Kuwait to cover their expenses."
On behalf of the Foreign Minister, Information Minister Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah Al-Mubarak Al-Sabah requested a two-week postponement as leeway for the Foreign Minister to respond to Al-Barrak’s questions.
The Assembly unanimously approved the request, although Al-Barrak threatened to grill if Sheikh Sabah Khaled Al-Sabah fails to reply.
"If the minister does not respond, I will consider him complacent with Sheikh Nasser Al-Mohammed Al-Sabah," he stated.
