The court upheld that a restriction order under the Dangerous Drugs Act does not require accompanying grounds and allegations of fact, which are solely mandatory for detention orders.

Introduction

[1] On 25 April 2024, a restriction order was issued by the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs ("the Minister") under subsection 6(3) to the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ("the Act") restricting the applicant to Mukim Cukai, Daerah Kemaman, Terengganu for a period of two years ("the restriction order"). On 11 June 2024, the applicant applied for and was granted leave to commence judicial review proceedings for a declaration that the restriction order was null and void.

[2] At the substantive stage of these judicial review proceedings, the applicant raised the following grounds in support of the declaration (see Applicant's Written Submissions):

(a) the restriction order is not accompanied with the statement consisting of the "grounds and allegations of fact" to prove that the applicant was a part of a substantial body of persons whose action is threatening public order as required by the preamble of the Act and art 149 of the Federal Constitution;

(b) the applicant was not informed of the reason for the arrest that led to the restriction order being made against him;

(c) non-compliance of subsections 5(2), 5(3), and 5(4) of the Act, as there was a 20-day delay by the Inquiry Officer in submitting his report to the Minister;

(d) non-compliance of subsections 6(1) and 6(3) of the Act, as there was a 24-day delay by the Minister to issue the restriction order;

(e) non-compliance with subsection 4(5) of the Act, as the duration of time in recording the witness statement was not recorded.

[3] On 14 January 2025, I dismissed the application. This judgment contains the reasons for my decision.

Analysis And Decision

[4] In making the decision, I kept in mind that preventive detention laws are a serious invasion of personal liberty and that the safeguards provided by the statute in question must be strictly construed and observed in favour of liberty (Sk Tangakaliswaran Krishnan v. Menteri Dalam Negeri Malaysia & Ors ; [2009] 1 MLJ 149 ; ).

[5] I will now address the issues raised by the applicant in support of the relief he seeks.

Grounds (a) And (b)

[6] Grounds (a) and (b) are inextricably connected as they concern art 151 of the Federal Constitution and s 6 of the Act. As such, both grounds are taken together. The complaint by the applicant is that the statement of "grounds and allegation of facts" was not attached to the restriction order. Therefore, the restriction order does not show that the applicant is part of a substantial body of persons threatening public order, as a result of which the restriction order was made pursuant to subsection 6(3) of the Act.

[7] It was contended that a restriction order requires the Minister to be satisfied that the applicant is a part of a substantial body of persons involved in drug trafficking activities whose actions has or is threatening public order. The applicant relied on the Federal Court decision in Selva Vinayagam Sures v. Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Ors ; ; [2021] 1 AMR 425 and Peter Chang Nyuk Ming v. Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri & Ors ; , stating that the cases are in pari materia with the instant case.

[8] It was further contended that the Minister averring in an affidavit on oath stating that he was satisfied that the applicant is part of a substantial body of persons, involved in drug trafficking activities, whose actions has or is threatening public order cannot