JUDGMENT

Hishamudin Yunus J:

(On the oral application by the applicants at 3.30pm for an order that the police be restrained from rearresting the applicants within a period of at least 24 hours with effect from 4pm 30 May 2001)

Encik Abdul Ghani bin Haroon and Encik Gobalakrishnan a/l Nagappan are members ofthe political party, Parti Keadilan Nasional. They had been separately arrested under s. 73(1) of the Internal Security Act 1960. Encik Gobalakrishnan was arrested on 10 April 2001 at Kuah Police Station, Langkawi, whilst Encik Abdul Ghani was arrested on 11 April 2001 at Kuching International Airport.

The families, on behalf of the two detainees, have separately applied to this court for a writ of habeas corpus, through Criminal Application 44-9-2001 and Criminal Application 44-10-2001. By consent, these two applications have been consolidated and are being heard together.

The common respondent in the applications is the Inspector General of Police.

From the day of arrest right until the last day of the hearing of this application (Tuesday 22 May 2001) the family members and the lawyers engaged by their respective families have been denied access by the police department; and so is the Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM), notwithstanding the clear provisions of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999, in particular, s. 4(2)(d).

On 30 May 2001 I delivered my judgment. The full written judgment (it has now been reported as Abdul Ghani Haroon v. Ketua Polis Negara And Another Application (No 3)[2001] 2 CLJ 709) was read in open court around 11 o'clock in the morning. I granted the applications of the applicants for a writ of habeas corpusto be issued. In accordance with the provision of cl. 2 of art. 2 of the Constitution, I ordered that both the applicants be produced before me at 3.30pm on the same day for a formal order that they be released. At 3.30pm when the applicants were produced before the court, upon the application of the learned counsel for the applicants, Encik Malik Imtiaz, and after hearing arguments from both sides, apart from formally ordering their release, I also made a further order that the police be restrained from rearresting the applicants within the next 24 hours.

As pointed out by Encik Malik - and this was not rebutted by Encik Abdul Rasid Sudin, Senior Federal Counsel - and based on my own personal observation, there was tremendous police presence around the court premises that afternoon. Encik Malik submitted that the applicants feared that they would immediately be rearrested once they leave the courtroom. Learned counsel urged me to exercise my inherent powers - which I take to mean s. 25(2) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964read with para. 1 of the Schedule of the same Act - to make a further order that the police be restrained from rearresting the applicants at least for a period of 24 hours. The purpose of the order, argued counsel, is not only to give fruits to my judgment earlier given in the morning but also on humanitarian grounds since the families of the applicants were then still outstation and were on their way from Penang and Kedah to Shah Alam to meet the applicants.

The learned Senior Federal Counsel, Encik Abdul Rasid Sudin, contrary to my expectation, did not assure the court that the applicants had nothing to worry and that what they feared would happen to them would not happen. Instead, Encik Rasid submitted that I had no power to grant the order prayed for citing s. 29 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956.

Subsection (2) of s. 25 of the Courts of Judicature Actreads:

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) the High Court shall have the additional powers set out in the Schedule:

Provided that all such powers shall be exercised in accordance with any written law or rules of court relating to the same.

Paragraph 1 of the schedule provides:

1. Prerogative writs

Power to issue to any person or authority directions, orders or writs, including writs of t