Why Muhyiddin’s alias led to man’s freedom

 

Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin signing a plaque at an event in Bukit Pasir, Muar, last month. Muhyiddin, when he was home minister, signed a preventive detention order using his alias. (Bernama pic)

PETALING JAYA: Eyebrows were raised recently when a man slapped with a two-year detention order was freed because the prime minister signed the order using his alias.

Lawyers, however, agree with the release, saying strict compliance with the law is required in cases affecting individual liberty.

The Sabahan, alleged to be involved in drug trafficking, was freed by the High Court because the prime minister, who was home minister at the time, did not use his real name when signing the preventive detention order last year.

The signature on the order was that of Muhyiddin Yassin. The prime minister’s real name on his identity card is Mahiaddin Md Yasin.

Human rights lawyer Andrew Khoo said a “technicality becomes important” when a case involves a person’s liberty.

If technical requirements were not strictly complied with, a detention order should be quashed, he told FMT.

“The law does not provide much room for judicial reviews, and the courts have only been allowed to look at very technical matters,” he said. “This probably explains the court’s decision in this matter.

“In other areas where preventive detention, detention without trial and deprivation of liberty is not the subject matter, the difference in the name may not be so crucial.”

Khoo gave these two points to explain the lack of room for judicial reviews:

• In cases involving deprivation of liberty, such as those touching on national security, the court tends to defer to the government. The law itself may exclude a judicial review. Courts are therefore left to review only technical compliance.
• Boards that decide on preventive detention, such as the Poca (Prevention of Crime Act) Board and the Pota (Prevention of Terrorism Act) Board, have their own procedures, making it difficult to challenge a detention order for procedural impropriety. Again, the courts tend to be left only with technical non-compliance issues.

Another lawyer, Bastian Pius Vendargon, spoke of individual liberty as a fundamental right guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.

“A decision which requires mandatory compliance so that guaranteed liberty is not taken away is therefore good jurisprudence,” he said.

He said, however, that this did not mean the same fate would befall other documents signed by Muhyiddin instead of Mahiaddin.

Criminal lawyer Salim Bashir said any instance of non-compliance with procedures would be deemed an “abuse of process” when it comes to preventive detention.

Asked if this meant there was a danger that someone posing a threat to society could be let off on a technicality, he said that would be “unfortunate”.

“But in criminal cases, particularly those dealing with detention laws, a strict adherence to procedural aspects is significantly important to ensure justice.”

Another lawyer, Rajesh Nagarajan, said Malaysian courts had “always been very protective” of people’s liberties.

“Any technicality or deficiency, no matter how small, will cause a detention order to be struck down,” he said.

But outside such cases, he said, there was no requirement under the Ministerial Functions Act or the Federal Gazette that a document must be signed by “Mahiaddin” instead of “Muhyiddin”. - FMT