Immigration has no power to revoke passports, say lawyers

By admin-s Last updated Dec 9, 2014

(TMI) – Putrajaya has no authority to revoke passports of its citizens, civil lawyers said today, adding that such administrative action is in breach of fundamental rights accorded in the Federal Constitution.

They argued that a Federal Court ruling in 2009 had held that “personal liberty” under Article 5 includes the right of Malaysians to travel abroad with a valid passport.

Their comments came after the Immigration Department announced yesterday that it had revoked the Malaysian passports of sex blogger Alvin Tan and activist Ali Abd Jalil, who are seeking political asylum abroad.

The lawyers said the department should immediately cancel the order in deference to the apex court’s ruling.

At best, the lawyers pointed out that law enforcement agencies could stop a citizen, including those facing criminal charges, from going abroad.

Lawyer R. Kengadharan said any law passed by Parliament, including the Passports Act, would be illegal if it went against the constitution which is the supreme law of the land.

“The department has transgressed an irrevocable right and had acted contrary to natural justice,” he said.

Kengadharan said the aggrieved parties could apply to the court and demand that the department comply with the law as interpreted by the court.

The lawyer was responding to comments by the Immigration Department director-general Datuk Mustafa Ibrahim who had said that the duo’s actions could not be “tolerated”.

“We will not tolerate any individual who insults the judiciary and Malay rulers,” Mustafa had said, adding that notices would be sent via registered mail to both Tan and Ali’s last known addresses to inform them about the action.

“Besides sending the notices, we will also place announcements in local newspapers about the decision,” he had said.

Lawyer S. N. Nair said there was no provision in the Passports Act which empowered Mustafa to cancel a Malaysian passport lawfully issued to a citizen.

“Leaving aside the court pronouncement, it looks like the director-general has exceeded his authority,” he said.