Abdul Hamid Mohamad FCJ:

[1] When these two appeals came up before us, learned counsel for the appellants informed us that he was withdrawing the appeal by the first appellant (Abdul Razak bin Baharuddin) in Appeal NO 05-05-2004 (W) who had been released from detention. We accordingly struck off his appeal.

[2] We heard both appeals and dismissed them. We now give our reasons.

[3] Basically, all the appellants were asking for orders that writs of habeas corpus be issued for their release from detention. The applications were made under s 365 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides:

365. The High Court may whenever it thinks fit direct:

(a) any person who:

(i).........

(ii) is alleged to be illegally or improperly detained in public or private custody within the limits of Malaysia, to be set at liberty;

[4]Article 5(2) of the Federal Constitution provides:

5 (1).....

(2) Where complaint is made to a High Court or any judge thereof that a person is being unlawfully detained the Court shall enquire into the complaint and, unless satisfied that the detention is lawful, shall order him to be produced before the Court and release him.

[6] Coming back to the facts of the instant appeals, even though the dates of the relevant events, the places where the events took place and the police officers involved were different, the appellants were all arrested, detained under s 73(3)(a) of the Internal Security Act 1960 ("ISA") and subsequently detained under the order of detention made by the Minister pursuant to s 8(1) of the ISA.

[7] Before us, arguments were raised under the following heads:

1. "jurisdictional threshold" - the detention orders, grounds of detention and allegations of facts supporting the grounds of detention were made ultra vires the provisions of the ISA.

2. there has been procedural non-compliance, and

3. the report of the Minister was not disclosed.

[8] We shall refer to the arguments in more detail later. At this point, there is a more fundamental issue of law that has to be addressed. This concerns the provisions of ss 8B, 8C and 8D of ISA which provides as follows:

8B. (1) There shall be no judicial review in any Court of, and no Court shall have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of, any act done or decision made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Minister in the exercise of their discretionary power in accordance with this Act, save in regard to any question on compliance with any procedural requirement in this Act governing such act or decision.

(2) The exception in regard to any question on compliance with any procedural requirement in subsection (1) shall not apply where the grounds are as described in s 8A.

8C. In this Act, "judicial review" includes proceedings instituted by way of:

(a) an application for any of the prerogative orders of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari;

(b) an application for a declaration or an injunction;

(c) a writ of habeas corpus; and

(d) any other suit, action or other legal proceedings relating to or arising out of any act done or decision made by the Yang di- Pertuan Agong or the Minister in accordance with this Act.

8D. (1) Sections 8B and 8C shall apply to any proceedings instituted by way of judicial review of any act done or decision made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Minister under this Act, whether such proceedings were instituted before or after the coming into force of the Internal Security (Amendment) Act 1989 [Act A739].

(2) A reference to proceedings in subsection (1) shall not include a reference to proceedings which had concluded and in respect of which final decision of the Court had been given before the coming into force of the Internal Security (Amendment) Act 1989, or to any appeal or application to appeal against such final decision.

[9] In Lee Kew Sang v. Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri and 2 Ors, [2005] 2 MLJ 631, we had addressed this issue at