Skip to main content

How to challenge an act by the Minister under Section 8 of the ISA?

Judicial Review and Judicial Restraint: Understanding Section 8 of the Internal Security Act (ISA)

The Internal Security Act (ISA) remains one of the most heavily debated pieces of legislation in legal history, particularly regarding executive power and preventive detention. For legal practitioners and researchers, understanding how executive actions are challenged under this framework requires a deep dive into the doctrine of judicial restraint.
A definitive guidepost for this legal boundary is found in the landmark Federal Court case of Abdul Razak bin Baharudin & 7 Others v Ketua Polis Negara & 2 Others (and another appeal). This ruling clearly outlines the strict limitations placed on challenging a Minister’s order under Section 8 of the ISA.
The Core Principle: Procedural Compliance vs. Merits
The primary takeaway from the Federal Court's decision is that any judicial challenge to a Minister's act under Section 8 of the ISA must be strictly confined to procedural non-compliance.
Courts will not look into the substantive merits of the detention, the sufficiency of the evidence, or the subjective satisfaction of the Minister. Instead, the judiciary only examines whether the explicit administrative steps mandated by the law were followed precisely.
Why 'Mala Fide' (Bad Faith) Claims Often Fail
In Abdul Razak bin Baharudin, the appellants argued that their detention orders were issued mala fide (in bad faith) because the alleged grounds for their detention fell completely outside the intended scope of the ISA.
However, the Federal Court rejected this approach based on the following legal determinations:
  • Substance Over Labels: Alleging that grounds fall outside the scope of the ISA is inherently an attack on the bona fides (good faith) or the merits of the decision, not its procedure.
  • Procedural Limits: Bad faith or improper purpose do not fall within the technical parameters of "procedural non-compliance" under this specific legal framework.
  • No Pre-Condition for Prosecution: The law does not place a procedural obligation on the Minister to consider or exhaust standard criminal prosecution before opting to issue a preventive detention order.
  • Privilege of Executive Reports: There is no procedural requirement for the investigative reports submitted to the Minister to be disclosed to the detainees or the court. Attempting to force the disclosure of these reports is viewed by the court as an indirect, impermissible attempt to challenge the subjective satisfaction of the executive.
Practical Implications for Administrative Law
For legal professionals evaluating executive actions under restrictive security laws, this case highlights a critical hurdle. When drafting an application for judicial review against executive detention orders, framing arguments around the unfairness of the allegations or the lack of prosecution will not succeed. Success relies entirely on proving a distinct, documented failure to adhere to the statutory procedural steps outlined in the legislation itself.

Popular posts from this blog

Probate & Administration; Tort; Civil Procedure: Case Updates

In Ong Thye Peng v Loo Choo Teng & 7 Ors [2008] 1 AMR 757 [FC], Section 60 of the Probate and Administration Act 1959 (“the Act”) addresses the disposal of a deceased person’s property by their personal representative. Both executors and administrators serve as trustees of the beneficiaries’ property, bearing the responsibility to ensure the estate benefits to the greatest extent possible when dealing with trust assets. Their primary duty is to safeguard the rights and interests of the beneficiaries, and as such, the obligations of executors and administrators in relation to the estate are identical, particularly in the context of selling estate property. Consequently, in the sale of property by an executor, the fair market value is to be assessed not at the time of the offer but at the date of the hearing for the application seeking approval of the proposed sale. In the case of The Co-operative Central Bank Limited v KGV & Associates Sdn Bhd [2008] 1 AMR 789 [FC], the court ...
Read more

What are the available remedies to a purchaser when he is given a defective house out of time by the seller developer?

Late Delivery and Defective Housing: Your Legal Remedies as a Malaysian Homebuyer Buying a home is one of the most significant financial investments you will ever make in Malaysia. It can be incredibly frustrating when a housing developer delivers your property late, only for you to find it riddled with construction defects. If you are facing this situation, you have clear legal protections under Malaysian law. Here is a breakdown of the remedies available to Malaysian homebuyers when a developer delivers a defective house past the agreed deadline. 1. Compensation for Construction Defects When a developer delivers a house with defects (such as cracked walls, leaking pipes, or poor workmanship), they are legally obligated to fix them or compensate you under the standard Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) prescribed by the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 (HDA) . In the landmark case of LSSC Development Sdn Bhd v Thomas Iruthayam & Anor [2007] , the Court of Appeal...
Read more

Civil Procedure (pleadings-amendments; injunctions against Danaharta): Case Updates

In the case of Wu Siew Ying (trading as Fuh Lin Bud-Grafting Centre) v Gunung Tunggal Quarry & Construction Sdn Bhd & 2 Others [2008] 1 AMR 496 [Court of Appeal], the established legal principle affirms that amendments to pleadings may be permitted at any stage of the proceedings, provided they occur before the pronouncement of the court’s decision. As such, it was within the bounds of the law for the third defendant to seek an amendment at this advanced stage, even subsequent to the completion of submissions by all parties involved. This reflects the judiciary’s recognition of procedural flexibility when it does not prejudice the fair conduct of the case. Dato' Seri Dr Kok Mew Soon & 3 Ors v Mustapha bin Mohamed & 2 Ors [2008] 1 AMR 537 [HC] Under Section 72(a) of the Pengurusan Danaharta Nasional Berhad Act 1998, supported by relevant legal authorities, the court is expressly barred from issuing an injunction order against Danaharta as a corporate entity. In the...
Read more