Four months ago, in the wake of a failed terrorist attack in the UK, the Australian government attempted to imprison Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef on charges of "recklessly supporting a terrorist organisation". The evidence against Haneef was weak-to-nonexistant, and the charges spurious - a fact recognised by the magistrate at Haneef's first bail hearing. But hours after Haneef was granted bail, his visa was pulled on "character grounds", and he was behind bars again, this time awaiting deportation.
It now turns out that this attack on the rule of law had been planned in advance as a "contingency plan" should the judiciary fail to cooperate with the government - and that top AFP agents and senior immigration officials with the ear of the Minister had colluded to undermine the magistrate's decision. Think about that for a moment: it shows that the case was nakedly political. This wasn't just an attack on the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary - it was also an attack on the independence of the police, who were working hand in glove with a Minister's office to "get their man" - something no western police force should ever be doing.
The Australian Labour Party is now calling for a judicial inquiry into the handling of the Haneef case - and it sounds like it needs it. The principles of police and judicial independence are simply too important to be allowed to be undermined in this way, and those who undermined them need to either be sacked, or forced to resign.
