AFP 'withheld' Mohamed Haneef evidence

FORMER immigration minister Kevin Andrews had no idea of powerful evidence of Mohamed Haneef's innocence when he controversially revoked the visa of the then terrorism suspect last year.

Mr Andrews will tell the Rudd government-ordered inquiry into the bungled case, which opens today, that Australian Federal Police did not inform him of evidence debunking allegations against Dr Haneef's second-cousin Sabeel Ahmed - allegations that had led to the subsequent terrorism charge against the Gold Coast doctor.

The testimony of Mr Andrews to the inquiry, headed by retired NSW Supreme Court judge John Clarke QC, will raise questions about whether the AFP ignored the vital information or, in fact, if it was ever passed on to Australian investigators after it is believed to have been discovered by British police, days after the failed London nightclub and Glasgow airport bombings in June last year.

Mr Andrews' evidence to the inquiry will effectively leave AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty on his own in explaining the detention and charging of Dr Haneef, given that the case against the Indian-born doctor fell apart soon after his arrest on July 2 as he attempted to board a flight out of Brisbane for his native Bangalore.

AFP investigations are continuing into Dr Haneef and his Gold Coast hospital colleague, Indian-trained doctor Mohammed Asif Ali.

The inquiry will open today with a directions hearing in Canberra that is expected to hear submissions from Dr Haneef's lawyers calling on Attorney-General Robert McClelland to grant Mr Clarke commission-of-inquiry powers to ensure documents are released and witnesses compelled to give evidence and face cross-examination.

Queensland Law Society president Megan Mahon, in a letter last month that has been obtained by The Australian, told Mr McClelland that the Rudd Government had broken a pre-election promise to conduct an "independent judicial inquiry" into the case.

"At the time, we reasonably assumed that this meant that a serving judge would be appointed with royal commission or similar statutory powers," Ms Mahon wrote. "Your March statement (announcing the inquiry) is silent about what actual powers the Clarke inquiry has and, therefore, what recourse it has should potential witnesses either refuse to appear or, when appearing, refuse to answer questions for fear of the risk of defamation or self-incrimination."

Ms Mahon said she feared that without the expanded powers, conspiracy theories and conjecture would abound for years over the case.

Mr McClelland has previously stated that it will be up to Mr Clarke to seek the expanded "coercive" powers for the inquiry. Last month, Dr Haneef told The Australian he was concerned that the "truth won't be revealed" in his case unless the powers were granted.

Mr McClelland has also refused to expand the inquiry's terms of reference to consider the role of British authorities in supplying information to their Australian counterparts.

The issue will be raised in Mr Andrews' evidence, which is expected, along with that of other key players such as Mr Keelty, to be taken behind closed doors and without the prospect of cross-examination.

Mr Andrews yesterday declined to comment about the case.

But it is understood he will tell the inquiry he was in the dark about the evidence that damaged the case against Dr Haneef - which came to public attention only this month in a London court - before revoking the doctor's visa after he was granted bail on July 16 by a Brisbane magistrate.

The AFP's case behind the arrest, detention and charging of Dr Haneef rested on allegations that his second-cousin, Sabeel Ahmed, a doctor working in England, was a member of a terrorist organisation.

Dr Haneef was charged with recklessly assisting a terrorist organisation in giving Sabeel a mobile phone SIM card in 2006, before he left to work in Australia.

But this month it emerged in London's Old Bailey court that British authorities had obtained an email sent to Sabeel from his brother Kafeel - who later died from burns in an attempted car bombing on Glasgow airport - which was accepted by the court as showing there was "no sign" of Sabeel "being an extremist or party to extremist views".

The email revealed Sabeel had no prior knowledge of Kafeel's terrorist activities.

The case against Dr Haneef collapsed last year when it was discovered the SIM card had not been found in Kafeel Ahmed's car, as was initially claimed.

Earlier this week, Mr Clarke called for public submissions on the case before May 16.

He has been asked to examine the arrest, detention, charging, prosecution and revocation of Dr Haneef's visa on the basis of "secret" information.

Mr Clarke is due to report in September.

One of Dr Haneef's lawyers, Rod Hodgson of Maurice Blackburn, yesterday said Mr Clarke needed coercive powers despite Mr Andrews and Mr Keelty stating they will co-operate with the inquiry.

"I do not have confidence that there will be full and frank co-operation from some of the key players," he said.

"We don't have answers to questions we want answered, and are concerned that Mr Clarke is going to have some trouble getting to the bottom of those matters without being given coercive powers."

A spokesman for Mr Keelty declined to comment. "As Commissioner Keelty has previously stated, the AFP welcomes the Clarke inquiry and it will receive our agency's full co-operation," Mr Keelty's office said in a statement.

"It would be inappropriate for any member of the AFP to provide further comment until the inquiry is completed."


http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23621280-421,00.html