This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The applicant aged 43 years old was arrested by the police and by an order dated 24-9-02 made under section 4(1) of the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 hereafter referred to as "the Ordinance", he was ordered by the Deputy Minister of Home Affaires ("the Deputy Minister") to be detained for a period of two years at the Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak Simpang Renggam, Johor commencing from the same date.

2

A number of grounds has been cited by the applicant in support of his application through the affidavit in enclosure 4 and before I dwell further into those grounds suffice for me to state that in essence, the complain of the applicant rests mainly if not entirely on the ground that the Deputy Minister has failed to fully consider the grounds of detention and the facts of the case leading to his detention. In this respect, it would be pertinent to reproduce paragraph 6 of the applicant's affidavit in support of this application which goes as follows:

"6 . Saya menegaskan disini bahawa Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri tidak mengambil kira dengan secukupnya alasan-alasan dan fakta-fakta bagi tuduhan saya dibawah seksyen 4 Ordinan tersebut. Ini adalah kerana:

a) Bagi tindakan pertama saya tidak melakukan tindakan salah

sepertimana yang terdapat dalam tuduhan. Dan ini telah

dinyatakan sendiri oleh dua saksi iaitu A1 dan A2 yang telah

memberi keterangan dokumen terhadap saya.

b) Bagi tuduhan kedua, saya juga tidak melakukan apa-apa

kesalahan dan juga tidak langsung pergi ke tempat kejadian

sepertimana yang tercatat dalam tuduhan. Pernyataan ini sendiri

di akui oleh kedua-dua saksi iaitu (A1 dan A2) yang telah

rnemberi keterangan terhadap saya."

The other ground forwarded by the applicant come in the usual common allegations against the Minister acting mechanically and without applying his mind, a breach of article 5 of the Federal Constitution in respect of the applicant's right to counsel upon his arrest and initial detention. The applicant also allege that there was a deliberate act on the part of the police in naming him as the leader of the gang when in actual fact he is not at all involved in the matter, a frame up, so to say. In that respect he contends that the ground of

3

detention given by the Deputy Minister is baseless, wrong and therefore it vitiates the detention order.

The applicant also filed two other affidavits in enclosures 7 and 19 in reply to the various affidavits filed by the respondents and via enclosure 8, an affidavit affirmed by one Arumugam a/I Manikam, the applicant through the said Arumugam a/I manikam contends that the ground of detention given by one Puan Marsila bt Yakub, the Penolong Setiausaha Kementerian Dalam Negeri who prepares the " alasan-alasan dan tuduhan-tuduhan fakta yang atasnya Perintah Tahanan di bawah seksyen 4(1) Ordinan Darurat (Ketenteraman Awam dan Mencegah Jenayah) 1969" is without basis.

The said grounds and allegation of facts from the basis of the detention order issued by the Deputy Minister on 24.9.02.

By way of reply to all these allegations the respondents has filed 10 affidavits in reply and this court has gone through the arduous task of scrutinizing each and every one of those affidavits in determining whether the respondents has breached any of the procedures in issuing the order of detention on the applicant. To start with, I would again be reminded by what was said by Salleh Abas LP in Re Tan Sri Raja Khalid b. Raja Harun [1988] 1 MLJ 182, where at pg. 186 he stated:

"Where a person who has been deprived of his liberty challenges the detention, it is for the authority to show that the person has been detained in exercise of a valid legal power. Once that is shown, it is for the detainee to show that the power had been exercised mala fide, or improperly or made for a "collateral" or "ulterior purpose" "

4

It is trite law that the power of this court in habeas corpus proceedings to examine