Why a Judicial Review against PDRM

On 8.12.2021, I made four police reports against Immigration Department of Malaysia officers at a Singapore police station. These four police reports were transmitted to the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) at Bukit Aman police HQ via Interpol, for their action as advised by the ACP (Counsellor liaison), High Commission of Malaysia.

On 21.3.2022, my Malaysian lawyer wrote an email to the Royal Malaysia Police, requesting for a status update after more than three months of non-reply from PDRM. The Counsellor (Liaison) with the Malaysia High Commission in Singapore replied that PDRM is taking necessary actions about my reports (email attached).

After five months of silence, on the 28.4.2022, PDRM wrote to my lawyer, requesting my lawyer to lodge the police reports in Malaysia on my behalf. This email is shown below. Point to note: This requirement from PDRM contradicts the instructions given by the ACP, an official of the High Commission of Malaysia.

And my lawyer replied, quote “As lawyers, we don’t lodge police complaints or affirm affidavits on behalf of clients”. He then requested from PDRM, quote: “But if there is any other mechanism for an aggrieved person, please let me know so that I can convey the same to my client”.

This arrangement to make the police report at a Singapore police station is instructed by the ACP, High Commission of Malaysia. It is due to the fact that I cannot enter Malaysia as I have been blacklisted for life by the Immigration Department of Malaysia.

Instead of receiving an answer on what is their requirement of a mechanism to make my police reports, it seems PDRM had choose to ignore this serious matter. And we have no further communication from PDRM thereafter till PDRM sent a letter to my lawyer on 27.5.2022.

On 27.5.2022, PDRM sent a letter (shown below) to my lawyer, stating the following, quote:

Paragraph 4 – “As the results of the investigation and charges have been obtained from the sitting Court, it is hereby informed that the complaint of your client is outside the jurisdiction of the PDRM”.

Paragraph 5 – “The PDRM would like to recommend that you keep in touch with the Malaysian Immigration Department (JIM) or the Ministry of Home Affairs (KDN) as the ministry is responsible for voicing the complaint to enable the investigation to be carried out by the relevant parties”.
Paragraph 6 – “We would also like to emphasize that no follow-up action will be taken by the PDRM in relation to this matter in the future“.

My Malaysian lawyer responded on the 30.5.2022 (email shown below) and replied as follows, quote:

“I trust that with the High Court declaration, there is ample material to justify the investigation of and appropriate action on the complaint of illegal detention for the last 13 days”.

It will not make sense for my client to go to immigration to make a complaint against immigration officers”.

“I am of the view that the illegal detention of a person (beyond that allowed by law) is an offence that falls within the scope of PDRM“.

It is clearly within my rights to make this complaint to PDRM, and it is their official duty to investigate and let the AGC decides on the prosecution of these criminals.

Instead of responding, PDRM reverts to the usual silence mode, “played deaf and dumb” and continues to ignore all my reminders and chaser emails.

So now after more than one year of making the police reports to PDRM with no action taken by PDRM, I followed up by two emails (5.12.2022 and 28.12.2022) to PDRM for their confirmation, “to investigate or not to investigate”. This was also a fair notice given to PDRM before taking this matter to the court.

The last email dated 28.12.2022 is the confirmation of PDRM’s non-action on the four police reports. It is also a public confirmation of the double standard practiced by PDRM with respect to foreigner/Singaporean. With this double standard, PDRM has acted in defiance against their own Malaysia FC Article 8 (1).

According to the Malaysia Federal Constitution Article 8 (1) – All persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law. It is clear that this Article 8 (1) also applies to foreigners in Malaysia. Such being the case and as far myself, as a foreigner is concerned, foreigner viewed this defiance as a challenge between the IGP vs the FC in the court action, meaning either the IGP is right in his action and the FC law is for show, or the FC law is sacrosanct and the IGP is wrong.

Why JR action is a matter of principle and upholding justice.

The Immigration Department of Malaysia had detained me illegally under hostile, oppressive, unhygienic and inhumane condition cell for 26 days. During these 26 days, immigration officers deprived me of all my rights, and by such deprivations, forced me into pleading guilty. In pleading guilty, I could end the forced detention imposed on me in this inhumane detention depot.

It has been proven 100% in a Malaysian court through Saman Pemula No. WA-24-16-04/2022 case that I will be detained indefinitely subjected to the will of Immigration Department of Malaysia officers. The decision to plead guilty is my only option to get out from Pekan Nenas detention Depot. At least I could hope for leniency from the magistrate, to impose a fine only and an end to this nightmare scenario.

To plead not guilty would mean that these immigration officers would continue to detain me in this Pekan Nenas Detention cell while waiting for a trial date. They will keep me in detention without bail until my case is settled is because I am a foreigner. This could be for months and which I do not want.

On hindsight, it was the right decision to plead guilty as I could have died inside Pekan Nenas detention cell while waiting for a trial date. Within four months after release, I suffered a heart attack and was treated in a well-equipped hospital in Singapore. It is well known that there had been cases of death in immigration detention cell (death of Nigeria national PhD student) with no accountability from these corrupt and evil immigration officers.

Such kind of evil human beings need to be made accountable and remove from power, which they used such power to hurt and harm defenseless foreigners, even causing death of foreigners at their hands.

No ordinary case, but a dark scheme hatched to fix me.

I have provided evidence to substantiates in my Permohonan Jenayah No WA-44-178-07/2019 case that this is what a vengeful ex-housekeeper and her immigration boyfriend had set out to fix me in retaliation against me. The ex-housekeeper had even vowed to make sure that I will be in prison while the immigration boyfriend told me to “watch out”. This was after I reported him for his illegal trespassing on my property to sleep with his married girlfriend. This illegal trespassing and both were in the same room sleeping was caught red-handed when I carried out a random check early at 3.00 am on my old bungalow property.

My old bungalow property was raided when the ex-housekeeper tipped off the immigration officer who arrested, detained me for 26 days and brought me to their immigration court before a magistrate. Instead of standing before a magistrate for a remand order proceeding, the immigration officer charged me with no evidence except for a charge sheet stating that I harbored six illegal immigrants.

After being subjected to hostile, oppressive, unhygienic and inhumane condition detention cell for 26 days, I involuntarily pleaded guilty due to oppressive circumstances so as to get out. I was fined RM30,000 which I then paid to settle according to the law of Malaysia. But it was not settled as far as these immigration officers who continues to lock me up in the same Pekan Nenas Detention Depot, based on their whims and fancies. Hence, they are also known to Malaysians as little “Napolean”. It was only after the intervention by the Singapore Consular that I was finally released after eight more days of illegal detention.

With such atrocious dark scheme, a police investigation is needed to find out the truth of the matter concerning this dark scheme and all the perpetrators behind the dark scheme.

Court actions provided me new findings of facts

There were a series of court actions taken by me against the Director General of Immigration pertaining to the illegality of two detentions by immigration officers. These two detentions are for two periods, one period of 13 days and another period of 8 days. This culminates in two court orders, confirming the illegality of both detentions. Both detentions are criminal offences under the Malaysia Penal Code, under section 220 and section 344. The two court orders were furnished to RMP as evidence of the serious crimes and which the RMP in accordance with FC Article 8 is obligated to take action.

It was also discovered that two immigration officers had perjured in their affidavits to deceive the high court judge for the Permohonan Jenayah No WA-44-178-07/2019 case. In one of the officer’s affidavits, there was a “tampered” exhibit used to deceive the judge as well.

One of the discoveries from the Saman Pemula No. WA-24-5-01/2020 case was this finding of fact. The eleven foreigners who were arrested together with me was also on the same document used to prove whether I was produced before a magistrate within 14 days in accordance with Immigration Act 51(5)(b). Similarly, when I was declared as being subjected to an illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional detention, these eleven foreigners were also illegally detained but do not have any recourse for them to address their grievances. In fact, two of them had lost their livelihood, having paid an agent for their work permit, then subjected to few months of illegal detention before they were deported for unknown reason. I met them and were told that their boss had paid for their release so that they can work but instead they were arranged to be deported. Why were they detained for a few months when they were never produced before any magistrate nor charged for an offence? This matter was included in my police report for an investigation so the truth of the matter concerning their status can be ascertained.

A second discovery from the Saman Pemula No. WA-24-5-01/2020 case was that there were two remand orders exhibited, meaning one is authentic and one is “manufactured”. The judge in her written judgment, quote:

Paragraph 29 – “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 there are two remand orders which have not been explained off by the Defendant”.

Another discovery was that the format of the remand order was an option to tick on whether the arrested person was produced before a Magistrate within 14 days instead of being an order for immigration officer to declare that it conforms to the Immigration Act section 51(5)(b) and signed by the immigration officer. This document format with an option to choose nullifies the section 51(5)(b) requirements making it non-requirements. What a big loophole for the immigration officers to detain foreigners with an order supposedly signed by a magistrate for remand without producing the person. We can only guess that all previous foreigners detained were never produced before a Magistrate for remand for we don’t know how long more, according to the officer’s whims and fancies.

One discovery from another Saman Pemula No. WA-24-16-04/2022 case was that suddenly there were an order of removal and an order of detention served to me, acknowledged by me that I have never seen in my whole life. I had heard many tales from other detainees that for a backdoor payment, an illegal can have his illegal status changed to legal. I have also met two detainees who were not charged because according to them, they had valid work permits. However, after their boss had made a payment, they were still deported after been illegally detained for months. I can only guess that the same order of removal and order of detention that suddenly appeared in my court case probably were used for their detention and removal.

All the above findings of facts justify the judicial review of the PDRM’s inaction and refusal to investigates. I believe the police investigation will helps to unravel the truth of the matter concerning my two illegal detentions, my trial and the proceeding at the immigration court and my lifetime immigration blacklist.

Basis of my Judicial Review (JR) court action

In the matter of refusal and/or failure of the Respondent to investigate into the complaints made by the Applicant concerning the illegal detention of the Applicant by the concerned officers of the Director General of Immigration (i) from 14/03/2018 to 26/03/2018, and (ii) from 27/03/2018 to 03/04/2018;

In the matter of the letter of the Respondent dated 27/05/2022; And in the matter of Articles 5 and 8 of Federal Constitution;

And in the matter of paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964; And in the matter of Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012;

And in the matter of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court and O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2012.

Judicial Review statements

Refusal of the Respondent to Investigate

Para 17 – By the advice of the Counsellor (Liaison) High Commission of Malaysia in Singapore, the Applicant had made several police reports with the Singapore Police Force against the officers of DGI whereby the Applicant had among others, reported that he was illegally and unlawfully detained.

Para 18 – The Applicant subsequently sent numerous follow up emails from December 2021 to April 2022 to the Counsellor (Liaison), Interpol Bukit Aman (an arm of the Respondent) and relevant authorities in respect of the police reports which the Applicant have made on 08/12/2021. The Applicant’s solicitors had also sent an email on 21/03/2022, however, there was no response from Interpol Bukit Aman (an arm of the Respondent) until 28/04/2022.

Para 19 – On 28/04/2022, the Applicant’s solicitors received an email from Supt. S. K., an officer of the Respondent, informing that they have referred the Applicant’s matter to the Legal & Prosecution Division, Criminal Investigation Department of the Respondent.

Para 20 – After the Applicant’s solicitors replied on 28/04/2022, the Applicant had sent further follow-up emails on 04/05/2022 and 12/05/2022 to the Respondent. On 27/05/2022, the Applicant’s solicitors received a letter from the Respondent, in which the Respondent stated that, among others, his complaint is beyond the jurisdiction of the Respondent and they further advised that the Applicant directly contact the Immigration Department of Malaysia or the Ministry of Home Affairs in order for them to investigate the Complaints.

Para 21 – The Applicant’s solicitors then responded on 30/05/2022 and state that the Respondent did not address the Applicant’s illegal detention and that the illegal detention of a person is indeed an offence that falls within the scope of the Respondent. There was no reply to this from the Respondent.

Para 22 – The Applicant had then sent numerous follow-up emails to the Respondent from June 2022 to December 2022 but received no reply from them. The Applicant’s emails until August 2022 were concerning the first part of the detention (14/03/2018 – 26/03/2018) and his emails from September 2022 were concerning the said first part of the detention and the second part (27/03/2018 – 03/04/2018).

Para 23 – In the Applicant’s last email on 05/12/2022, he has put the Respondent on notice that if there was no response from the Respondent by 08/12/2022, the Applicant would take it that the Respondent was not interested in investigating the complaints (which meant both in respect of the first part illegal detention and the second part illegal detention), and proceed with appropriate legal action. There was no response to this email. Seeing no response, the Applicant formally lodged a police report in Singapore on 27/12/2022 concerning the second part illegal detention and forwarded that to the Respondent by email on 28/12/2022 with a notice that unless the Respondent confirms in return email by 30/12/2022 that it will investigate into the complaint, the Applicant will take it as the Respondent’s confirmation that it would not investigate into this complaint as well as the complaint as to the first part illegal detention. There was again no reply, and the Applicant take it as said in the email.

No basis for the Respondent’s refusal

Para 24 – The Respondent refused and/or failed to take any action or properly investigate the Applicant’s complaints despite the Court Orders (which was duly forwarded to the Respondent) whereupon it was declared that Art. 5(4) of the Federal Constitution was infringed when the Applicant was not brought before a Magistrate within 14 days of arrest rendering his detention from 14/03/2018 till 26/03/2018 illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional and that his detention from 27/03/2018 till 03/04/2022 was illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional. The Respondent had a duty and the power to investigate the Applicant’s complaints, especially on a case of public interest such as the Applicant’s, but in effect refused to do so without any proper basis.

Para 25 – Hence, there is procedural impropriety in the conduct of the Respondent and the refusal and/or failure of the Respondent to investigate the Applicant’s complaints is, among others, a violation of s 20(3) of the Police Act 1967. There is no proper basis for the Respondent’s refusal and/or failure to investigate and take due action on my complaints.

Para 26 – The Respondent had taken into account irrelevant factors and failed to take into account relevant factors in refusing and/or failing to investigate the Applicant’s complaints. Any decision made by the Respondent not to investigate the Applicant’s complaints (or any of them) is improper, irrational, unreasonable and without any right basis.

Judicial Review application

1. If the Respondent’s letter to the Applicant’s solicitor dated 27/05/2022 is a decision (as opposed merely the view of the Respondent as to its powers) not to investigate into the complaint of the Applicant concerning illegal detention of the Applicant by the concerned officers of the Director General of Immigration (“DGI”) from 14/03/2018 to 26/03/2018 (“First Complaint”), then an extension of time be granted, pursuant to O 53 r 3(7) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”), for the Applicant to institute these proceedings, insofar as the First Complaint is concerned, out of the time limited by O 53 r 3(6) of the ROC 2012.

2. Leave be granted to the Applicant to institute the Judicial Review proceedings herein in the matter of the Respondent’s refusal and/or failure to receive, investigate and/or take due action on the complaints of the Applicant concerning illegal detentions of the Applicant by the concerned immigration officers of the DGI (i) from 14/03/2018 to 26/03/2018 (First Complaint), and (ii) from 27/03/2018 to 03/04/2018 (“Second Complaint”), together referred to as “Complaints”.

3. If the Respondent’s letter to the Applicant’s solicitors dated 27/05/2022 is a decision not to investigate into the First Complaint, the same be, by certiorari, be quashed.

4. The Respondent be ordered, by mandamus, to receive, investigate and take due action on the Complaints.

Illegal detentions of the Applicant from 14/03/2018 to 26/03/2018 (First Complaint)

Police report #1 – Reference L/20211208/2005 is pertaining to the illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional detention without a magistrate remand order after 14 days.

The Immigration Department of Malaysia officers had detained me continuously for 26 days without producing me before a magistrate within 14 days in accordance with Immigration Act section 51(5)(b). The high court order and the appeal court order declaring this detention as illegal is shown below:

Illegal detentions of the Applicant from 27/03/2018 to 03/04/2018 (Second Complaint)

Police report #2 – Reference L/20211208/2001 pertains to Immigration Department of Malaysia officers continue to detain me in disregard of a court discharge order for my release. 

My release was after the intervention by an officer from the Consulate General of the Republic of Singapore. The high court order declaring this part 2 detention as illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional. At the time of making this report on 8.12.2021, I had not commenced legal action in the high court concerning this illegal detention. The legal action for this illegal detention was commenced on 27.1.2022 as a backup plan in the event that PDRM do not investigate which was anticipated. And on 12.9.2022, the KL High Court declared that this part 2 detention from 27.3.2018 to 3.4.2018 is illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional. The high court order is shown below:

After the KL High Court declared that my detention from 27.3.2018 to 3.4.2018 was illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional, I then made an additional police report to supplement report reference L/20211208/2001 to include the KL High Court order as evidence and include the names of additional immigration officers who were involved in the illegal detention. This police report is L/20220930/2016 is shown below:

I made one final police report for part 2 illegal detention and attached the high court order again as evidence on the 27.12.2022 which were then sent to PDRM in an email for their confirmation on whether they will be investigating or not by return email by end of day on 30.12.2022. This is to give notice that after this 30.12.2022 date, court judicial review action would commence.

Police report #3 – Reference L/20211208/2016, is for potential perjury in the sworn affidavit and an act of “tampering” evidence. This is a deliberate act to hide the page 3 of 3 in a set of 3-pages document submitted as exhibit HB-1. This removed and hidden page 3 of 3 is the magistrate remand order itself. This lie and falsehood successfully deceived the high court judge and was incorporated into his written judgment.

Police report #4 – Reference L/20211208/2011&2013 is also for potential perjury in the sworn affidavit. This lie and falsehood successfully deceived the high court judge and incorporated into his written judgment.

In addition, a re-typed “manufactured” and unsigned remand order was submitted as exhibit MHK-1. This needs to investigate on the origin of “manufactured” remand order and find out who were all the perpetrators of this “manufactured” remand order.

Filed Affidavit in support (AIS) on 4-1-2023 and together with a Judicial Review Application and a Judicial Review Statement

Related background information leading to Judicial Review action.

I was staying in Malaysia under the MM2H long term social visa program from 29-11-2010 till 4-4-2018.

Prior to this visa program I was seconded to the MNC company’s manufacturing plant in Johor under an employment visa from 26-6-2009 to 6-5-2010.

Under the MM2H program, I bought Malaysia properties and one such property was used for charity purpose in collaboration with a local charity organization.

On the 28.2.2018, a big group of officers from the Immigration Department of Malaysia raided this old bungalow property. At that time, I was there to do repair and maintenance work on my property. The immigration team leader arrested me and detained me firstly in Setia Tropika, then in Pekan Nenas Immigration Detention Depot continuously for 26 days. On the 26.3.2018, I was brought to the Immigration court situated within the Pekan Nenas Detention Depot compound. The whole Pekan Nenas Detention Depot compound is off-limit to the public and is a security-controlled area. This is the first time for me to face a magistrate after being kept incommunicado for 26 days in hostile, oppressive and inhumane condition cell.

The Immigration Department of Malaysia then charged me with an offence under 55E (1) relating to six illegal immigrants found on my shelter home property. There was a total of eleven others who are also foreigners that were arrested together with me. We were all detained illegally for 26 days before immigration officers brought seven of us before this immigration court magistrate. The other five, three male and two female were not charged together with us on the 26.3.2018.

Under oppressive circumstances created from illegal detention, I involuntarily pleaded guilty and paid a RM30,000 fine to settle the offence. What followed was a part 2 illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional detention of 2 days in Kluang prison and 6 days in Pekan Nenas Detention Depot in disregard to a court discharge order. Of the five who were not charged, I met the three male Nepalese nationals again during my part 2 illegal detention and knew that they had remained in detention until they were deported back to Nepal months later.

For the part 2 illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional detention of 8 days, immigration officers alleged that I was issued an Order of Removal and an Order of Detention that was served and accepted by me. However, I had never seen such orders as affirmed in my affidavits.

The immigration officers detained me from 27.3.2018 to 3.4.2018 for the part 2 illegal detention. And on the 4.4.2018, immigration officer, PS revoked my MM2H visa and blacklisted me from entering Malaysia for life. In the same office, an immigration lady officer offered me a middleman contact (fixer) who could help lift my blacklist for RM10,000. On the same day I was deported to Singapore. I did call the contact on a later date to confirm the number but not to take up this backdoor deal which is to offer a bribe. Is my blacklist for life tied to immigration officer seeking corruption?

Seeking the truth of the matters through court actions

This Immigration blacklist for life rendered all my Malaysian properties inaccessible for life and expected financial losses.

I appealed to the Director-General of Immigration and the Director of MM2H against the blacklist for life.

On the intervention by the Director of MM2H, Immigration DG allowed a 3-month period to dispose all my properties. This 3-months period is grossly insufficient, is ill-intentioned and I rejected this “concession”.

I then moved on to using court actions to resolve and seek the truth of all matters concerning (1) my immigration offence, (2) my illegal detentions, and (3) my lifetime blacklist.

Through the court action process, there were many findings of facts as follows:

1. Immigration officer had committed perjury and “tampered” evidence to deceive the High Court Judge that resulted in the Judge issuing a written judgement that incorporates a falsehood. This falsehood was that I was presented before a Magistrate for a remand order proceeding when it was not so.

2. A second Immigration officer committing perjury as well together with the first Immigration officer to deceive the High Court Judge, resulting in the Judge believing two officers’ testimonies as true when it was not. The High Court Judge erroneously incorporates this same falsehood as above into his written judgment paragraph 38 and paragraph 55. This falsehood perpetuates to the Appeal Court record when it was not so.

3. This second Immigration officer submitted a “manufactured” remand order as exhibit against an original remand order in another court application for originating summon.

4. In this application for originating summon, the High Court ruled that I was unlawfully, illegally and unconstitutionally detained for 13 days. This unlawful confinement is a criminal offence against me under Act 574 section 334.

5. In another application for originating summon, the High Court ruled that I was unlawfully, illegally and unconstitutionally detained for 8 days. This is another unlawful confinement and a criminal offence against me under Act 574 section 220.

As enshrines in the Malaysia Federal Constitution Article 8(1) which states the following: “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.”, I am therefore entitled to the equal protection of the law against crimes committed against me.

After obtaining legal advice, I lodged police reports to the Royal Malaysian Police. These police reports were lodged at a Singapore police station following the instructions given by the Malaysian High Commission in Singapore.

On the 8-12-2022, it is one year anniversary from the date of lodging these police reports. However, there is no police action taken in relation to these police reports despite repeated reminders.

Ensuring police action is to find out the truth of the matter concerning these three matters, namely: #1 – Was there a dark scheme by Immigration Department of Malaysia officers to fix me together with the vengeful ex-housekeeper and her immigration boyfriend? #2 – What were the motives of these immigration officers behind the two parts illegal detentions? #3 – What was the real reason for a merciless lifetime blacklist and is it linked to officers’ corrupt motives?

The Malaysian Government has a duty to uphold the equality of justice of all persons under Malaysia FC Article 8(1). If these criminal offences by Immigration Department of Malaysia officers are not prosecuted, then the Malaysian Government have no legal and moral standing to prosecute me on 26.3.2018 according to Malaysia law.