Ex Umno Member Khairuddin Wins Lawsuit Over 1mdb Linked Detention

---

Khairuddin Abu Hassan, who lodged multiple police reports over 1MDB in 2015, was awarded RM300,000 in damages over his 62-day detention by Malaysian authorities.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court this morning allowed the wrongful detention civil action by the ally of former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad and ordered the government to pay RM50,000 in costs.
On May 4, 2018, Khairuddin filed an RM8.83 million suit for wrongful detention under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012.
Earlier in 2015 during the BN administration under Najib Abdul Razak, Khairuddin had made numerous reports in the country and overseas over the losses suffered by 1MDB.
He was detained under Section 124C of the Penal Code on Sept 18, 2015, and upon his release on Sept 23, was rearrested under Sosma and charged under Section 124L of the Act on Oct 12, for alleged sabotage of financial institutions.
However, on May 12, 2017, the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court acquitted the former Batu Kawan Umno division leader of the criminal charge.
During today’s online proceedings, judicial commissioner Quay Chew Soon ruled that the various police reports lodged by Khairuddin do not warrant his arrest for investigation under Section 124C, which deals with the offence of involvement in activity that is detrimental to parliamentary democracy.
“This is fortified by subsequent action by the defendants not to charge the plaintiff in court (under Section 124C).
“I find that the plaintiff established that his first arrest and detention for six days from Sept 18 to Sept 23 (2015) is unlawful,” Quay said.
The defendants targeted by the lawsuit are investigating officers in his case: Wan Aeidil Wan Abdullah, M Chelliah and Habibi Majinji; former inspector-general of police Khalid Abu Bakar; deputy public prosecutors Masri Mohd Daud and Awang Armadajaya Awang Mahmud; former attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali; and the government.
‘Sosma detention unlawful’
Quay ruled that Khairuddin’s later detention under Sosma for 56 days was also unlawful because an offence under Section 124L is not one that warrants detention under Sosma.
“I find the defendants had unlawfully arrested the plaintiff under Sosma when he was not being investigated under an offence that falls under Sosma.
“The defendants’ witnesses failed to justify why the plaintiff needed to be arrested under Sosma,” the judicial commissioner said, noting the defendants also failed to show reasonable cause for the detention.
Quay however did not allow the malicious prosecution portion of Khairuddin’s civil action, ruling that the plaintiff failed to prove the defendants had malice in the matter.
He noted that while the plaintiff succeeded in proving the first three out of five limbs for proving malicious prosecution, he failed on the fourth limb.
The first three limbs cited by the judicial commissioner are that the defendants set the law in motion against the plaintiff, that the matter later turned in favour of the plaintiff, and that the defendant did not have probable cause to set the law in motion against the plaintiff.
Quay pointed out that Khairuddin failed to prove the fourth limb, namely that the defendants’ actions were actuated by malice. He did not name the fifth limb.
“The plaintiff failed on a balance of probabilities to prove malice on the part of the defendants linked to the then premier and chairperson (of the board of advisers) of 1MDB, Najib Abdul Razak, namely improper purpose to safeguard the interest of the said individual concerned.
“It was just a bare assertion. The plaintiff failed to show that the prosecution against him was (merely) to protect the then prime minister,” the judicial commissioner noted, pointing out that Najib is also not a defendant named in the civil action.
Khairuddin was represented by counsel Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla.
Senior federal counsel Andi Razalijaya A Dadi headed the legal representatives for the defendants. - Mkini

---