Preventive detention laws require strict compliance with procedural safeguards; failure to meet such standards can nullify the legality of detention.

JUDGMENT

Abdul Wahab Mohamed J:

[1] The first Applicant Chiew Yuen Oon and Second Applicant were prior to the arrest under Dangerous Drugs Act (Special Preventive Measures) 1985 (Hereinafter referred as "Act 316") already arrested and investigated under detention for investigation under alleged offence of drugs trafficking under s 39B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.

[2] Inevitably due to reasons of lack of admissible evidence against both Applicants, they were immediately rearrested and detained under s 3 of Act 316.

[3] From the very beginning, based on the affidavits in support by the next of kin of both Applicants and as well as oral submission by Counsel from the bar table which I took into consideration, Counsel for both Applicants had written for immediate access to both Applicants.

[4] Unfortunately, the investigating officer informed him that since he was preoccupied with meeting in Bukit Aman and as well as involving is various field operation, the proposed meeting could only possible two weeks later.

[5] Nonetheless, Counsel for Applicants filed habeas corpus application supported by the affidavit of the wife of First Applicant and the nephew of Second Applicant (Since Second Applicant is a bachelor) on 10 May 2021.

[6] It is pertinent to state that at that point of time, both Applicants were already detained more than a week. Both Affidavits in Support by both Applicants were only filed on 20 May 2021. This was not in dispute and both parties accepted it.

[7] On the first case management date 11 May 2021, the Applicant's Counsel was not present. But Respondent's Federal Counsel appeared and he mentioned on behalf of both Applicant's Counsel and the case management was adjourned to tomorrow on 12 May 2021 before the Registrar.

[8] On the next day, on 12 May 2021, Counsel for Applicant appeared and mentioned on behalf of Federal Counsel since he was engaged in other High Court. The Registrar then directed Respondents to file affidavits in rely before 8 June 2021 within 26 day while parties were to file written submission before 21 June 2021. Hearing wax fixed on 25 June 2021.

[9] The Counsel for both Applicants filed his written submission on 23 June 2021. His reason failure to file within stipulated time because he was waiting the affidavits in reply to be filed by Respondents. Neither the Respondents filed any affidavits in reply and as well as any written submission.

[10] On 25 June 2021, the Counsel for Respondents informed that the Minister had issued a detention order against the First Respondent under s 6(1) Act 316 and a restriction order under s 6(3) of same Act for two years respectively. Further, Counsel for Respondents asked for extension of time to file affidavits in reply.

[11] Counsel for both Applicants vigorously objected to the application for extension of time on the ground that the said habeas corpus application was made during the 60 days of police investigation. To allow extension of time will change the character or nature of 60 days habeas corpus application which serious prejudiced the Respondent.

[12] Whether to grant or otherwise any extension of time, it behoves the Respondent to substantiate the appropriate grounds for such extension. Counsel for Respondents stated that grounds for extension were due to overwhelming number of cases preoccupying them. It is pertinent to state that at that juncture, there was no formal application for extension of time was made by the Respondents.

[13] Hence, whether under such circumstances would justify the Respondents for such extension especially adequate of time were given and especially no formal application was filed?

[14] It is trite that in any proceeding involving preventive detention laws, the courts should be vigilant in protecting the right of the affected person, the detenue or the restricted person. See Re Datuk James Wong Kim Min; Minister Of Home Affairs Malaysia & Ors, 1976 MarsdenLR 284 his lordship Chief Justice Lee Hun Hoe CJ Borneo (As he then was) enunci