ROVIN JOTY KODEESWARAN v. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH & ORS AND OTHER APPEALS

[2021] 3 MLRA 260

ROVIN JOTY KODEESWARAN v. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH & ORS AND OTHER APPEALS
Federal Court, Putrajaya
Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim CJSS, Nallini Pathmanathan, Vernon Ong Lam Kiat, Zabariah Mohd Yusof, Hasnah Mohammed Hashim FCJJ
[Criminal Appeal Nos: 05(HC)-304-12-2019(B), 05(HC)-308-12-2019(B), 05(HC)-303-12-2019(B), 05(HC)-305-12-2019(B), 05(HC)-307-12-2019(B) & 05(HC)-7-01-2020(W)]
19 February 2021

JUDGMENT

Zabariah Mohd Yusof FCJ:

A. Background

[1] The six appellants appealed against the decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner which dismissed the application by the appellants for a writ of habeas corpus. The six appellants were ordered to be detained under s 19A(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (POCA) by the Chairman/Deputy Chairman of the Prevention of Crime Board (Board) for a period of two years. Pursuant to the order, the respective appellants are to be detained at the respective Pusat Pemulihan Khas (PPK).

B. The Issue In The Appeals

The Basis Of The Challenge

[2] Encik Najib Zakaria, counsel for the five appellants, Rovin Joty Kodeeswaran, Darweesh Raja Sulaim, Ragu Vitee, Devandren James and Velu Rajakumar indicated that he would be raising only one issue before this court, namely, whether s 15B POCA (an ouster clause provision) which purports to limit the exercise of judicial power is ultra viresart 121(1) of the Federal Constitution (FC) and therefore unconstitutional.

[3] Dato' Seri Gopal Sri Ram, counsel for the appellant Nivesh Mohan, raised an additional issue in addition to the issue raised by the other five appellants, namely, whether s 7B POCA had been complied with by the Board.

[4] Corollary to the issues raised in paras [2] and [3] above, the following four points were raised by the appellants in the course of arguments, namely:

(i) Section 15B POCA which was enacted under art 149 which ousts the jurisdiction of the courts to perform judicial review is unconstitutional by virtue of art 4(1) of the FC;

Sign up to view full cases Login