KUALA LUMPUR: Former Umno leader Datuk Khairuddin Abu Hassan was awarded RM300,000 in damages by the High Court for his unlawful detention under Sosma seven years ago.
He was detained for speaking up about the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) financial scandal.
High Court Judge Quay Chew Soon allowed Khairuddin's civil suit against the government over his detention at the Sungai Buloh prison for 60 days.
The court also ordered the government to pay RM50,000 in costs.
Quay said Khairuddin was vocal in speaking out about the 1MDB issue and went to several foreign countries, namely France, Switzerland, England, Hong Kong, and Singapore to meet with the enforcement agencies there.
On Sept 18, 2015, Khairuddin was arrested by the police at his residence's car park on suspicion of having committed an offence under Section 124C of the Penal Code.
Section 124C of the Penal Code stipulates that whoever attempts to commit an activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy shall be punished with maximum 15 years' jail term.
Quay said he did not see any material that warranted such arrest as the defendants failed to adduce any evidence against Khairuddin.
"I find that the plaintiff has established that his first arrest and detention for six days from Sept 18, 2015 until Sept 23, 2015 is unlawful.
"The plaintiff upon his release on Sept 23 the same year was again rearrested by a team of police officers at the court's corridor under Section 4(1) of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act, or Sosma.
"Khairuddin was then charged with an offence under Section 124L of the Penal Code which pertains to attempt to commit sabotage against the country's banking and financial services.
"However, the High Court on Nov 18, 2015, ruled that Section 124L of the Penal Code does not fall within the ambit of Sosma," he said.
Quay said at this juncture, Khairuddin had been detained under Sosma for 56 days from Sept 23, 2015, until Nov 18, 2015.
"It is my finding that the defendants had unlawfully arrested and detained Khairuddin under Sosma, when he was not investigated under an offence which falls within the ambit of Sosma.
"The defendants' witnesses throughout the trial failed to justify why Khairuddin had to be arrested and remanded under Sosma.
"The defendants' witnesses had failed to give evidence in court as to the reason Khairuddin had to be investigated for an offence under Section 124K or 124L of the Penal Code," he said.
Quay said there was no reason to believe that the plaintiff was involved in security offences under Section 4(1) of Sosma.
"The purpose and objective of Sosma is to combat terrorism. It is aimed at curbing terrorist activities and organised violence.
"I find it incredulous how Khairuddin's activities in lodging his police report and the reports abroad and voicing his concerns about the 1MDB issue, can be constructed as acts of terrorism or violence," he added.
However, the court ruled that Khairuddin failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, malice on the part of the defendants.
"The plaintiff has not shown that the sole or dominant purpose actuating the prosecution against him was to cover up the activities of Datuk Seri Najib Razak who was then the prime minister and finance minister," he said, adding that Najib was not a party to the suit.
In his suit, Khairuddin had named former Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar, former Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali and six other individuals as defendants.
Khairuddin had filed the suit on May 4, 2018, claiming that on Sept 18, 2015, he was detained by police for investigation under Section 124C of the Penal Code.
According to his statement of claim, on Sept 23 the same year, after the court ordered his release, he was rearrested under Sosma and charged at the magistrate's court here under Section 124L with attempting to sabotage the nation's economy.
However, on May 12, 2017, the prosecution decided to withdraw the charge against him and he was subsequently acquitted and discharged.
Khairuddin claimed that his arrest under Sosma was an abuse of the law as it had caused him to be wrongfully detained at the Sungai Buloh prison for 60 days.
He also claimed that the prosecution had malicious intention against him which had caused his reputation and image to be tarnished.