Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FADIAH NADWA FIKRI & ORS v. KONSTABLE FAUZIAH MUSTAFA & ORS AND ANOR CASE
FADIAH NADWA FIKRI & ORS v. KONSTABLE FAUZIAH MUSTAFA & ORS AND ANOR CASE
Case name: FADIAH NADWA FIKRI & ORS v. KONSTABLE FAUZIAH MUSTAFA &
ORS AND ANOR CASE
Citation: [2015] 10 CLJ
Court: High Court Malaya, Kuala Lumpur
CASE SUMMARY
The plaintiffs are legal assistants who provided their services to 14 people who were
arrestedoutside the Brickfields Police Station (BPS) for holding a candlelight vigil for one
Wong Chin Huat, a political activist who had been arrested earlier and was being detained at
the BPS. However, the plaintiffs in this case submitted that one DSP(Deputy Superintendent
Police) Jude (DW6) had approached the plaintiffs who were standing outside the boom
barrier (place of congregation), and informed them that he had invoked Section 28A of the
Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and denied access for the plaintiff to meet their clients.
There was no answer provided when the plaintiffs asked for a justification of the invocation.
Following that, ACP Wan Abdul Bari (DW5) issued a warning through a loud hailer that
everyone should disperse within 3 minutes, declaring that the gathering outside the boom
barrier was an illegal assembly. The plaintiffs were the only ones arrested along with a
journalist by SD1, SD2, SD3 and SD4 because of their vehement denial to disperse from the
location. The plaintiff scommunicated the arrest to their lawyers, but the lawyers were denied
access to the plaintiffs. SP6 then lodged a police report indicating that the plaintiffs were
detained in BPS until about 4a.m. during which they were ordered to change into lock-up
clothes and after which they were taken to the Travers Police Station where they spent the
rest of the night and the next morning. The plaintiffs were then taken back to BPS and
released on bail in the afternoon and were never charged in court with any offence let alone
the offence of being in an unlawful illegal assembly. As a result of the defendant’s actions,
the plaintiffs filed the present suit and sought damages for unlawful arrest, detention and
denial of their constitutional rights.
rights of an arrestee
ARGUMENTS (DEFENDANT)
a) Pursuant to Section 28A(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the requirements under
subsections above shall not apply due to the reasons so stated in the DW’s testimony.