126 Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights anti-terrorism powers were abused in several ways. The laws are used to arrest and detain individuals who had committed only minor criminal offences. Statistics shown to the Panel indicate that of 65,000 individuals detained under TADA, 19,000 were detained in Gujarat, a State without any significant terrorism. The law was also applied disproportionately to minority communities.309 The risk of abuses, specifically of discrimination,310 is inherent in laws that are over-broad, since it leaves much to the discretion of local law enforcement officers. The Indian Supreme Court311 subsequently held that a requirement of intent to use firearms for terrorist activity had to be read into these laws. United Kingdom At the London Hearing, the Panel was informed of the case of Walter Wolfgang. 82 years old, Mr Wolfgang had fled to Britain as a Jewish refugee from the Nazis, and spent a lifetime as a peace activist and Labour Party member. In the audience at the annual Labour Party conference in 2005, Mr Wolfgang shouted the word “nonsense” at Foreign Secretary Jack Straw during his speech about British policy in Iraq. Stewards bundled Wolfgang out, and the police then detained Mr Wolfgang under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (this provision allows the police to stop and search people without any need to show that they have a reasonable suspicion of an offence being committed). The televised proceedings caused uproar, and Mr Wolfgang was quickly released, and received an apology. A parliamentary question revealed that Section 44 has been used to stop and search anti-war protestors at one military base on 995 occasions between 21 February and 11 April 2003.312 These three examples highlight testimony that was given to the Panel repeatedly at most of the Hearings: over-broad or ambiguous definitions of terrorism can all too easily be used in a discriminatory way against minorities, be applied arbitrarily, and/ or limit legitimate expressions of dissent. Clear cases of the legislation being used to stifle political dissent were given in relation to Uganda and the Maldives. In the latter case, the now President of the Maldives was charged with terrorism in August ammunition specified in columns (2) and (3) of Category I or Category III (a) of Schedule I to the Arms Rules, 1962, in a notified area, (b) bombs, dynamite or hazardous explosive substances or other lethal weapons capable of mass destruction or biological or chemical substances of warfare in any area, whether notified or not, he shall be guilty of terrorist act notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force […] In this section, notified area means such area as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify.” Section 5 of TADA contained a similar provision. 309 Statistics by the National Human Rights Commission of India cited in the written submission by Mr Rohit Prajapati, Documentation & Study Centre for Action, EJP South Asia Hearing. 310 See summary of the EJP South Asia Hearing at which this was debated heatedly, with reference to the oral testimony of Soli Sorabjee, former Indian Attorney General stating that “in practice, the misuse is rampant” and Collin Gonzalves, Executive Director of Human Rights Law Network who spoke about discriminatory use of counter-terrorism laws. 311 Supreme Court of India, People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2004) 9, SCC 580; Katar Singh v. Union of India (1994), 3 SCC 569. 312 UK House of Commons, Hansard, Column 219W, 28 April 2003, written answers on RAF Fairford.