Timely submission of reports by Investigating and Inquiry Officers within lawfully prescribed periods negates claims of procedural non-compliance in habeas corpus applications.

[1] This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus by the applicant against the detention order dated 25 September 2023, made by the Deputy Home Minister under s 6(1) of the Dangerous Drugs, (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ("the Act") for a period of two years. After hearing the parties, I dismissed the application for habeas corpus. My reasons are as follows.

Issues In This Case

[2] There are four main issues in this case as follows:

a) First Issue: The 27 days delay by the Investigating Officer in submitting a complete report of the investigation pursuant to s 3(3) of the Act is a procedural non-compliance;

b) Second Issue: The 26 days delay by the Inquiry Officer in submitting a complete report of the investigation pursuant to s 5(4) of the Act read together with s 54(2) of the Interpretation Act 1948 and 1967 is a procedural non¬compliance;

c) Third Issue: The Investigating Officer's failure to provide the applicant with his own statement recorded under s 4 of the Act had prejudiced the applicant's ability to properly defend his case at the Representation Hearing and is a violation of art 151(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution ; and

d) Fourth Issue: The failure of the Inquiry Officer in furnishing a copy of the applicant's own statement before the applicant's Representation Hearing is a violation of art 151(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution .

The Law

[3] Article 5 of the Federal Constitution provides:

"FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTIES

Liberty of the person

5. (1) No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.

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

(3) Where a person is arrested he shall be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest and shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.

(4) Where a person is arrested and not released he shall without unreasonable delay, and in any case within twenty-four hours (excluding the time of any necessary journey) be produced before a magistrate and shall not be further detained in custody without the magistrate's authority:

Provided that this Clause shall not apply to the arrest or detention of any person under the existing law relating to restricted residence, and all the provisions of this Clause shall be deemed to have been an integral part of this Article as from Merdeka Day:

Provided further that in its application to a person, other than a citizen, who is arrested or detained under the law relating to immigration, this Clause shall be read as if there were substituted for the words "without unreasonable delay, and in any case within twenty-four hours (excluding the time of any necessary journey)" the words "within fourteen days":

And provided further that in the case of an arrest for an offence which is triable by a Syariah Court, references in this Clause to a magistrate shall be construed as including references to a judge of a Syariah Court.

(5) Clauses (3) and (4) do not apply to an enemy alien."

[4] Article 151 of the Federal Constitution states:

"Restrictions on preventive detention

151. (1) Where any law or ordinance made or promulgated in pursuance of this Part provides for preventive detention:

(a) the authority on whose order any person is detained under that law or ordinance s