JUDGMENT

Hashim Yeop Sani CJM:

[1] All the appellants in these appeals were detained under detention orders of the kind held by this Court to be defective. See Hong Siew Sin v. Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri & Ors, [1990] 2 MLJ 90 and Chye See Chong v. Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri & Ors.

[2] After the decisions were handed down by this Court retrospective legislation was then introduced and passed by Parliament to render valid orders of the kind held to be defective as aforesaid. That legislation was the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) (Amendment) Act 1990 (the Amendment Act).

[3] A common point of law as preliminary objection was raised in all the habeas corpus proceedings in the High Court which became the subject of these appeals. The sole issue is whether s 5 of the Amendment Act is valid and has legislative effect.

[4] Section 5 of the Amendment Act reads as follows:

5(1) Where a detention order was made under subsection (1) of s 6 of the principal Act against any person during the period between the commencement of this Act (hereinafter referred to as the "transitional period"), the detention order and the detention effected in pursuance thereof during the transitional period, and its continuation thereafter, if any, are hereby declared lawful and valid, and shall be deemed to be, and to have always and at all times been, lawful and valid, notwithstanding that:

(a) the period for which it was directed by that order that such person be detained commenced from a date other than the date on which the detention order was made; or

(b) the detention order was a fresh detention order made after the revocation of a previous detention order against such person.

(2) No action, suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding whatsoever of any description or in any form shall be brought, instituted or maintained in any Court on any ground after the commencement of this Act or, if brought or instituted before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be maintained, for or on account of, or in respect of, anything lawfully done in relation to the detention order or the detention declared lawful and valid under subsection (1), save that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any such legal proceeding which had concluded and the final decision of the Court in respect of which had been given before the commencement of this Act, or to any appeal in respect of such final decision.

[5] The Amendment Act was passed to amend the parent Act and it received the Royal Assent on 31 March 1990 and was gazetted on 2 April 1990.

[6] It can be seen that s 5 of the Amendment Act consists of two subsections. Subsection (1) seeks to validate retrospectively all detention orders of the kind held to be defective by this Court as aforesaid. Subsection (2) provides that no action, suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall be brought, instituted or maintained in any Court on any ground after the commencement of the Amendment Act or, if brought or instituted before the commencement of the Amendment Act shall continue to be maintained for or on account of anything lawfully done in relation to the detention order or the detention declared lawful and valid by subsection (1).

[7] The object of both subsections of s 5 of the Amendment Act is to validate all detention orders of the kind held defective by this Court except that the validation should not affect any legal proceedings which had concluded and the final decisions of the Court given before the commencement of the Amendment Act.

[8] It was contended on behalf of the appellants that s 5 of the Amendment Act is invalid on the grounds apparently that the said s 5 cannot be construed "as being added to the principal or parent Act", and such provision can only be given force if it be made part of the parent Act by the process of amendment. Accordingly it was argued that s 5 did not constitute an amendment and therefore was invalid and has no legislative effect. It was also argued tha