10.12.2024 Deputy Minister issued a two-year Detention Order under section 6(1) of Act 316; order served on the applicant at 10.45 pm. [13] In these circumstances, the alleged 22-day period does not disclose any breach of a mandatory procedural requirement, and no procedural non-compliance has been established. 180 Issue 3: Whether the “substantial body of persons” requirement was complied with [14] The Federal Court in Selva Vinayagam Sures v Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Ors [2021] 1 MLRA 83; [2021] 2 CLJ 29 established that for a detention under section 6(1) of Act 316 to 185 be valid, three elements must be present: (i) the activity relates to drug trafficking involving a substantial body of persons; (ii) the detainee is a member of that body; and (iii) the Minister is satisfied that preventive detention is necessary in the interest of public order. Further, subsequent decisions have clarified that this requirement is 190 satisfied if the Detention Order, the grounds of detention, and the accompanying allegations of fact, when read together, disclose the detainee’s involvement as part of a collective operation (Muhammad Redzuan Omar v Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Anor [2022] 5 MLJ 611; [2023] 2 CLJ 859; [2022] 195 MLRAU 75; Peter Chang Nyuk Ming v Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri & Ors [2023] 7 CLJ 521; [2023] MLJU 1432). [15] In Muhamad Nur Siras Munir Md Dzafir v Menteri Dalam Negeri Malaysia & Ors [2023] 2 CLJ 502; [2022] MLRHU 2502, the court held that drug trafficking activities, by their nature, ordinarily involve 200 coordinated operations and networks rather than isolated conduct. Where the documents disclose that the detainee acted in concert with others within a distribution chain, the requirement is met even if the individual’s role is that of a courier or intermediary. Justice Nurulhuda Nur'Aini Mohamad Nor JC states: 205 “[20] It is immaterial which part of the chain of transaction this individual person (the applicant) appears so long as he or she is acting in concert for the same purpose that is to complete the drug trafficking activity… [21] …When this Court says it is a group with a number of 210 members, it must necessarily mean an alliance formed to execute what would be impossible to execute individually. This formation of an alliance would satisfy the word ‘syndicate’… [23] …Suffice if it can be shown that he operated the drug trafficking activity within a group of people … 215 [25]…Different individuals acting as conduit pipe to receive, deliver the drugs to the purchaser… acting in concert with the ‘pengedar dadah tempatan’.” [16] In Suren Pushparajan v Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri 220 Malaysia & Yang Lain [2022] CLJU 1144; [2022] MLJU 1113; [2022] MLRHU 972, the court granted habeas corpus as the allegations showed that the applicant acted alone and did not involve a substantial body of persons. The court held: “[15] Berdasarkan kepada pengataan-pengataan fakta yang 225 dikeluarkan terhadap Pemohon, adalah jelas bahawa aktiviti pengedaran dadah tersebut telah dilakukan oleh Pemohon sebagai seorang individu tanpa melibatkan sekumpulan besar orang.” 230 The court also observed: [13] …Akta tersebut apabila dibaca bersama dengan s. 15 Akta Tafsiran 1948 dan 1967 dan Perkara 149 Perlembagaan Persekutuan, ianya jelas menunjukkan bahawa Akta tersebut telah digubal untuk membanteras kegiatan jenayah berkaitan 235 pengedaran dadah yang dilakukan oleh sekumpulan besar orang dan bukan oleh satu individu sahaja.” [17] However, the present case is clearly distinguishable. While the applicant attempts to portray himself as a lone offender, this 240 contention cannot sustain when the detention documents are read as a whole. In the applicant’s Affidavit Balasan (Enclosure 16), the applicant asserts that the statement by the Deputy Minister that he was “sebahagian daripada sekumpulan besar orang” is incorrect. He also states that the statement of the deputy minister is 245 unsupported by any factual or legal basis, and he denies that the recorded statement B1 contains any admission of involvement in drug trafficking. He also maintains that he never admitted to participating in drug distribution in any manner. These assertions, however, amount to nothing more than a denial of the factual 250 allegations and an attempt to challenge the evidential basis upon which the Minister formed his satisfaction in issuing the Detention Order. [18] On the other hand, the Detention Order, the Grounds of Detention and the accompanying Statement of Facts expressly state that the 255 applicant was “sebahagian daripada sekumpulan besar orang” involved in drug distribution activities. The allegations disclose that the applicant received drug supplies, repackaged them into smaller packets, and arranged for the drugs to be delivered to customers through other individuals acting as intermediaries or runners within 260 the distribution chain. Such activities, by their very nature, demonstrate coordinated participation in a wider network of drug distribution rather than the conduct of a lone offender. [19] Accordingly, the applicant’s attempt to characterise himself as acting alone does not displace what is clearly reflected on the face 265 of the detention documents. More importantly, these denials invite the Court to re-examine the factual merits of the allegations, which is impermissible under section 11C(1) of Act 316, where the Court’s jurisdiction is confined strictly to questions of procedural compliance. In the circumstances, the element of participation as 270 part of a substantial body of persons has been sufficiently disclosed, and no procedural defect is established. [20] On the face of the detention documents and the supporting statutory reports, the element of participation as part of a ‘substantial body of persons’ has been clearly reflected. Accordingly, the statutory 275 requirement under section 6(1) of Act 316, as explained in Selva Vinayagam Sures (supra), has been complied with, and no procedural defect in the formulation of the grounds has been established. Conclusion 280 [21] Having considered the affidavits, the chronology of events, the detention documents, and the submissions of the parties, I am satisfied that all mandatory and directory procedural requirements under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985, the relevant subsidiary provisions, and the Federal 285 Constitution have been duly complied with. [22] The applicant has failed to establish any procedural non-compliance affecting the legality of the detention. The complaints raised relate essentially to factual disputes and the merits of the Minister’s decision, which fall outside the scope of judicial review. 290 [23] In light of section 11C(1) of Act 316, this court’s jurisdiction is confined strictly to procedural compliance, and the issues raised by the applicant do not disclose any defect going to the root of the detention process. Accordingly, the application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. 295 Dated : 6 March 2026 300 [MOSES SUSAYAN] 305 JUDGE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT IPOH, PERAK 310 Counsel For the Applicant : M Thanakumaran Advocates and Solicitors 315 [Messrs M.Thanakumaran & Shan] Sg Petani, Kedah For the Respondents : Ng Xiang Hua 320 Federal Counsel [Office of the Legal Advisor] Ministry of Home Affairs Putrajaya 325 HEADNOTES: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Habeas corpus – Preventive detention – Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 – Challenge under section 6(1) – Scope of judicial review under section 11C(1) – 330 Whether Court confined to procedural compliance – Whether factual merits and Minister’s subjective satisfaction reviewable – Alleged 22-day delay in investigation report – Whether delay amounted to procedural non-compliance – Whether reports completed within 60-day statutory period or within “All convenient speed” requirement – Whether substantial body 335 of persons requirement satisfied – Whether the Detention Order and the grounds of detention disclose involvement in a collective operation – Whether the applicant’s claim that he was merely a “runner” amounts to a challenge to the factual merits rather than a procedural defect– Whether any procedural defect going to root of detention 340