KUALA LUMPUR (March 20): The High Court here has ruled that the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM), namely then-Dang Wangi police chief senior assistant commissioner Noor Dellhan Yahaya, had acted beyond their powers in obstructing the Malaysian Bar Council’s assembly and march for judicial independence (Walk for Judicial Independence) in June 2022.

In his decision on Thursday for the 2022 suit filed by the Bar Council, Judicial Commissioner Gan Techiong awarded the sum of RM1 in nominal damages to be paid to the Bar Council by Noor Dellhan, Dang Wangi’s current deputy chief superintendent Nuzulan Mohd Din, PDRM, the inspector general of police, the home minister and the Malaysian government, as the first to sixth defendants.

The sum was proposed by the Bar Council and agreed upon by the senior federal counsel. No order as to costs was made.

“I am grateful to counsels of both sides for agreeing that nominal damages of RM1 be awarded to the first plaintiff (The Malaysian Bar Council). The other prayers in the statement of claim are dismissed. Lastly, since this is a public interest case, and the plaintiffs have succeeded only in part, no costs shall be ordered,” he said.

In his broad grounds, which were read out in court on Thursday, Gan surmised that Noor Dellhan, as the officer who was in charge of the Dang Wangi Police district, had acted ultra vires (beyond his powers) in imposing conditions under Section 15 of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, by absolutely prohibiting an assembly to be organised by the Bar Council from marching to Parliament on June 17, 2022.

He said that Noor Dellhan also acted ultra vires in taking action to prevent the march, as street protests are allowed under new laws.

“Under Section 15 of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, the OCPD can impose conditions, but not a total prohibition that defeats the purpose of the amendments made to the [Peaceful Assembly] Act [by the amendment Act in 2019]. The amendments had, among others, deleted the prohibition against street protest. Street protest is to be allowed, subject to reasonable conditions imposed,” he said.

The judge said that the OCPD could have “imposed restrictions and conditions, instead of a total prohibition of the march”.

“As an example, the OCPD could have imposed a condition that the participants march in two rows on the public road to Parliament, or such other conditions that ensure the safety of the participants as well as to avoid any nuisance to the people with interest. The first defendant, as the OCPD of Dang Wangi, had therefore acted ultra vires (beyond his powers) in absolutely prohibiting the march,” the judicial commissioner said.

In his judgment, Gan had dismissed the Bar’s other claims in its statement of claim, as he surmised that other than not being able to march to Parliament, the objective of the march and assembly was met.

“Since the plaintiffs were allowed to hold the assembly on June 17, 2022, at the Padang Merbok Public Carpark, to deliver speeches there, and to deliver the memorandum to the representative of the prime minister at the said venue, the plaintiffs had in fact achieved almost the whole objective of the assembly on June 17, 2022,” Gan said.

The plaintiffs were demanding special damages amounting to RM19,449, as well as general damages, and excessive and exemplary costs, in addition to seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs’ rights had been violated and a declaration that their detention was illegal and wrong in law.

The plaintiffs’ names in the case were the Bar Council’s then-president Karen Cheah Yee Lynn, current president Mohamed Ezri Abdul Wahab, current vice-president B Anand Raj and current secretary Murshidah Mustafa.

After the judgment, Cheah in a statement said that she was “elated by the outcome” of the case.

“Clearly, the court accepts our position that the OCPD should not have prevented us from marching or exercising our constitutional right to assemble and march, back then,” she said.

“We viewed the OCPD's transgressions very strongly when the incident happened back then, and we are delighted that our views and beliefs all this while have been justified.”

Cheah added that the RM1 sum was asked for by the Bar Council, and nothing more, as the case was a “matter of principle”.

Bar Council vice-president Anand Raj said in a statement that while they have been vindicated, he expressed disappointment with other findings of the court, saying that the broad grounds of the judgment should be studied.

“The Bar is vindicated that the primary finding of the court was that the police had acted ultra vires and illegally, but we are disappointed with the other findings which do not appear to align with the primary finding. We should study the broad grounds once obtained; but an appeal against the other findings appears to be necessary and inevitable,” he said.

The defendants in the case were represented by senior federal counsels Mohammad Al-Saifi Hashim and Mohd Ashraf Abdul Hamid.

After proceedings, Al-Saifi told The Edge that he would seek instructions from the government on whether to pursue an appeal for the case.