The below report is a public account that I have published to the relevant Authorities, NGOs & other relevant independent parties:

Subject: Serious Concerns Of Falsehoods On My Case’s Records

In view of my complaints and the four police reports lodged regarding abuse of human rights perpetuated on me, I would now bring to your attention these serious concerns regarding my case to provides context to the police reports:

I believed that affidavits submitted by two immigration officers to the High Court contained falsehoods and for which two police reports to the Royal Malaysian Police had been lodged. This falsehood is pertaining to the fact about me being presented to the Magistrate on the 12-03-2018 for a remand order. 

Not only was there falsehood, but I also believed that a fake “manufactured” court document was used in court as reported in my police report. Together with a fake “manufactured” court document, there is also an act of “tampering” of evidence which is also reported in the police report.

Details of both offences are shown on image below:

Lies in both Affidavits was entered into Judge’s written judgment

Pending the outcome of the police investigation based on the four police reports, I will now refer to the written judgment as contained in the document, Permohonan Jenayah No. WA-44-178-07/2019, in particular to these two paragraphs, i.e. para 38 and para 55 which is the cause of serious concerns as explained below:

Para 38: “This is not just the absence of any issues raised to the depot authorities and to the investigation officer, but also to the magistrate during remand proceedings, …” This sentence in paragraph 38 have asserted as a fact that I was presented to the Magistrate on the 12-03-2018 for remand proceeding was a falsehood. See snippet of paragraph 38 of Permohonan Jenayah No. WA-44-178-07/2019.

Similarly, it is repeated of the same falsehood that I was brought before the magistrate on the 12-03-2018 for remand in Para 55: “The applicant in this case before me not only did not raise complaints whilst in remand with the depot authorities or to the investigating officer, or to the Magistrate who had allowed remand, …”. See snippet of paragraph 55 of Permohonan Jenayah No. WA-44-178-07/2019.

High Court Judgment mentioned “two remand orders”

Both these two paragraphs are now proven to be a falsehood by another KL High Court written judgment as contained in the document, Saman Pemula No. WA-24-5-01/2020 that concludes that I was never presented to the Magistrate on the 12-03-2018. See snippet of Saman Pemula No. WA-24-5-01/2020 below.

Submitting “tampered” document to support a lie

This falsehood is because the High Court Judge believed the depot camp commandant when she lied in her affidavit and submitted a “tampered” exhibit to support her lie.

This “tampered” exhibit has a machine-stamped indicating page number and the total number of pages as a set of documents. It is clear that this exhibit had been “tampered” when page 3 of 3 containing crucial and critical information about the Magistrate’s order had been removed from this set of 3-pages document. 

When one page of a set of documents indicates three pages is missing, that is a red flag to any reviewer of documents. Having been an ISO 9000 auditor while under employment with a MNC, I will surely ask where for the missing page 3 so it can be presented for a complete verification of the facts.

Presenting document with a page removed to the court is an act of “tampering” of evidence and I had reported this offence to the police for investigation. This offence has led to the falsehood being entered into the High Court Judge’s written judgment.

Page 3 of 3 of exhibit appeared in court and subsequently unravel the lies

Miraculously, during the court hearing, the hard copy consisting of the full 3-pages document was circulated in the court to my lawyer. The appearing of this printed copy of page 3 of 3 exhibit eventually revealed the truth about the non-presentation to the Magistrate for remand proceeding on 12-03-2018. It then went on to unravel the lies as presented in the Immigration affidavits.

Leaving these two paragraphs that contain falsehood on the court record, Permohonan Jenayah No. WA-44-178-07/2019 is to allow falsehood to propagate and perpetuate to the Appeal Court. During the appeal before three Judges, the DPP used the WA-44-178-07/2019 written judgment with this falsehood and claim as being the truth. It is an injustice to me that I have no avenue to redress this grievance. The only avenue is to make public about this falsehood being a serious concern to the Judiciary.

Unreliable witnesses and untruthful affidavits accepted as facts

The next serious concern is found on paragraph 34 which the High Court Judge acknowledged that the sworn affidavits by the two immigration officers were enough to disregard the validity of my complaint without need of further verifications and investigation. See snippet of paragraph 34 of Permohonan Jenayah No. WA-44-178-07/2019.

However, it is now shown that both the investigation officer and the camp commandant of the depot have lied in their affidavits averring that I was brought before a Magistrate when it was not true according to the findings contained in the document, Saman Pemula No. WA-24-5-01/2020 that I was never brought before the Magistrate on 12-03-2018.

This shows that paragraph 34 had findings that concluded on unreliable and untruthful affidavits.

Written judgment’s falsehood propagates and perpetuates

Then this falsehood perpetuates and is carried over to the appeal court proceeding where this document, Permohonan Jenayah No. WA-44-178-07/2019 that contains falsehoods became the document that the DPP relied on and his quote: “And I humbly submit that all these allegations is baseless and I stand guided by the findings by the learned High Court Judge.”, unquote.

During the appeal court proceeding, the DPP had specifically quoted paragraph 34, “The High Court judge had meticulously dealt with the allegations put up by the appellant, if I can read in verbatim, Ariff. At paragraph 34, and these are the things that have been dealt by the High Court judge, saying that the allegations made by the appellant is purely groundless, baseless and all these allegations were answered by the affidavits, by namely the IO himself, affidavit XX, affidavit YY of depot commandant and affidavit ZZZ which is the depot officer himself.” unquote.

To date, these falsehoods have been perpetuated through the court document, Permohonan Jenayah No. WA-44-178-07/2019 and into the court records of the appeal court as well.

DPP’s assertion of falsehood as fact is an injustice to me

Lastly, during the Appeal Court half-an-hour proceeding (attendance via zoom videoconferencing), my lawyer’s closing submission to the Appeal Court in response to the DPP’s submission based on Permohonan Jenayah No. WA-44-178-07/2019 includes a crucial point in relation to the falsehood as mentioned below (in red font).

The DPP had asserted to the Appeal Court the falsehood pertaining to the assertion that I was presented for remand on 12-03-2018. The DPP stated this before the Appeal Court, quote: “In fact, Ariff, he had all the opportunity to voice out his disagreement even during the remand period. In fact, during his remand proceeding, all these were never disclosed.”, unquote. The DPP’s assertion is referring to the falsehood of a remand proceeding before the Magistrate on 12-03-2018.

DPP could not produce a single piece of evidence

My lawyer in his closing submission to the court submitted that there was not a single piece of evidence in response to the DPP’s assertion of investigations over the continuous period of 27-days lock up and the DPP’s assertion of paragraph 34 – the falsehood of a remand proceeding on the 12-03-2018 that allows me to complain to the Magistrate.

And the DPP had further propagated this falsehood that is contained in the document, Permohonan Jenayah No. WA-44-178-07/2019.

Since these falsehoods against me that are in court record have propagated from the High Court trial and perpetuated to the Appeal Court record, my only recourse is to make publicly that these falsehoods were wrongly recorded as facts in my court document are serious concerns regarding my case.

Integrity and truth are fundamental of justice

The above-mentioned incidents regarding my case together and the pending police investigations have raised serious questions and concerns about my case.

Most importantly, as I have held public office previously as president of an organization registered with the Singapore Registry of Societies, I am obligated to the organization and the public to establish a fair, full and truthful account of what happened. See ROS record of public office holders

A fair, full and truthful account must take into consideration all these highlighted serious concerns and includes the result of the Malaysia police investigation. There is no intention to disrespect the judiciary or impinge on the judiciary or any judges. This report is put out for transparency, fairness and truth.

Date this report was published to relevant Authorities and others on 31-12-2021