high court declaration

The Final Outcome of Originating Summon (OS) vs DGI

Origin of story:

During the hearing on 19.12.2019 at KL High Court for case Permohonan Jenayah No WA-44-178-07/2019.

It was by a divine act of God that page 3 of 3 from a set of 3-pages magistrate remand order document shows up in the court room. This page 3 of 3 was not included in the exhibit "HB-1" that was submitted by Defendant, immigration officer HBB in her affidavit. A hard copy was circulated during the hearing to the court and to my Malaysian lawyer, AK. Lawyer AK had the presence of mind not to mention this page 3 of 3 during the court hearing. He then sent page 3 of 3 to me after the trial ended.

This document is the official page that shows whether I was produced before a magistrate for a remand order with the signature of the magistrate, ABB himself.

On this magistrate remand order document, it prove that I was never produced before the magistrate on the 12.3.2018 and not as what the Defendant, investigating officer, MHBK had alleged in his affidavit.

This order document has the official court letterhead logo and is 100% authentic and original.

The Originating Summon (OS)

So, with this court document I proceed to sue the Director-General of Immigration Department of Malaysia on the matter concerning my detention from 28.2.2018 to 26.3.2018.

This originating summon action was sealed with the KL High Court on 21.1.2020. The Defendant, on behalf of Director-General of Immigration (DGI) was the Johor immigration officer, MHBK who had arrested me on 28.2.2018.

What a perfect representative from the Immigration Department of Malaysia for the face-off in court indeed.

Of significant interest is the fact that this MHBK was seen by me only on the 28.2.2018 night when he arrested me. Apart from that night and henceforth I have never seen him at all.

That includes right up to today and hopefully never want to see this man, except to see him answer for his action to detain me illegally, unlawfully and unconstitutionally.

The court declaratory order for the illegal detention which MHBK had subjected me to is attached below.

This is a pretty straightforward case to be decided based on page 3 of 3 of original magistrate remand order, exhibit "W-2" in my affidavit (AIS). Furthermore, this document is actually from the Immigration Department of Malaysia, making it very credible to everyone concerned.

What can prove the truth?

The only answer to the truth is to present a clear copy of the original document that is kept in the filing system or archives for the court and judge NBB's inspection.

Officials were in cahoot with one another

In order to refute my exhibit "W-2", someone decided to produce a "Nota Prosiding", re-defined as magistrate remand order.

What happened then is the legal adviser, FSBMF from Immigration Department of Malaysia wrote an email to a different magistrate, MASBMA on the 4.5.2020. In this letter, he “put in an official request" to this magistrate, MASBMA for a copy of "Nota Prosiding". It is unexplainable that FSBMF did not put in his request to the magistrate, ABB who had signed off on the original remand order. Naturally, one can expect that magistrate, ABB would most gladly pull the original magistrate remand order from his record to send to FSBMF since it is to be used in a high court case. But magistrate ABB was not approached at all which already is a giveaway that something fishy is in the works here.

So, magistrate MASBMA on 12.5.2020 "helpfully replied and attached a “manufactured” re-typed page 3 of 3", re-define it as "Nota Prosiding" as it syncs with the "Nota Prosiding" in FSBMF's email. And this “manufactured” re-typed page 3 of 3" is now with a new name. "Nota Prosiding" as defined by FSBMF was given to immigration officer, MHBK to use as MHBK's "Nota Prosiding" exhibit, "MHK-1" in order to refute the exhibit, "W-2" which is the magistrate remand order that is part of the set of "Note of Proceeding".

The Defendant, immigration officer MHBK, used this re-typed unsigned "manufactured" remand order as exhibit "MHK-1" in his affidavit (AIO) against the original remand order exhibit "W-2" in my affidavit (AIS).

You can read more details about this in "lies and falsehoods perpetrators"

Unless people are really ignorant or uneducated, a normal person would be able to tell whether a document is authentic or "manufactured".

In this scenario, I have exhibited a document that was supplied by Immigration Department of Malaysia. It must be reiterated that this evidence does not originate from me but was provided by Immigration Department of Malaysia officers.

In order to verify the authenticity of this remand order and its contents, a clear copy of an original remand order, requested from the same magistrate office’s filing system or the archives and presented before the court and the judge for inspection.

Instead of presenting a clear copy, MHBK presented a re-typed unsigned copy. i.e a "manufactured" copy to the court to present before Judge NBB.

Unashamedly, it was exhibited as authentic to the court and to the judge, NBB. My Malaysian lawyer, AK laid both remand orders side by side and meticulously listed all the discrepancies, errors and differences between the two remand orders.

On the 4.5.2021, the judge, NBB heard my Malaysian lawyer, AK highlighted as many as twenty-five differences between both remand order documents. These are different fonts-type used, font sizes, whether in caps or non-caps differences, spacing differences, spelling differences, hand-written remarks became typed remarks, with signature become non-signed, no official letterhead with logo, no magistrate stamp, no accompanying page 1 and page 2 appended to prove document is valid to me, etc...

I applaud my Malaysian lawyer for doing the side-by-side comparison of both remand orders meticulously to prove it is a "manufactured" as a look-alike remand order. For those with untrained eyes or of little education, it can possibly be passed off as a draft copy of remand order.

The Conclusion

At the end of the trial, the learned judge, NBB concluded that I was never produced before a magistrate on 12.3.2018 for a remand order that would allow the Immigration Department of Malaysia to detain me legally for additional 14 days in detention.

In Judge, NBB's written judgment, she had stated the following: "It is of the considered view that the Plaintiff's deposition that he was not produced before any magistrate on 12.3.2018 is substantiated by the fact that there are two remand orders which have not been explained off by the Defendant."

Of significance importance in the above paragraph means that one remand order is authentic and real remand order, and the other remand order is a fake "manufactured" remand order.

This detention in their inhumane and cruel Immigration detention depot was an abuse of power by immigration officers. Hence the Malaysian KL High Court made a declaration that the detention from 14.3.2018 to 26.3.2018 was illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional according to the Malaysian Federal Constitution Article 5(4).

Will we see justice served in Malaysia after all the harm and damages done to me by the Immigration Department of Malaysia?

Will any of the involved immigration officers, MHBK, PS and HBB be dealt with in accordance with Malaysian law for this illegal detention?

How many more foreigners have been victims of the Immigration Department of Malaysia officers' abuse of powers such as the example below?

Together with me on the list of detainees to be produced before the magistrate were eleven others which were in similar situation as me, i.e. not produced within 14 days before a magistrate for their remand order. Where are their human rights in accordance with FC Article 5(4)?

The world awaits answers to the many human rights abuse perpetuated in Malaysia.

Please share this story if you believe that justice needs to be served for all the innocent victims out there.

Append here is a few news articles that were reported by the online news organizations.

Declaration by High Court of illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional detention for part 1 detention.