MUHAMMAD MALIKI BIN ABDUL HALIM v 1. ) LEFTENAN KOLONEL-SHAIFULLIZAN BIN ABD AZIZ (PEGAWAI PEMERINTAH BATALION KE-5 REJIMEN RENJER DIRAJA) 2. ) PIHAK BERKUASA SIDANG PANGLIMA BRIGED KELAPAN INFANTRI MALAYSIA 3. ) PANGLIMA ANGKATAN TENTERA MALAYSIA 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

01f-29-09-2024d Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) 10 November 2025 • 01(f)-29-09/2024(D) • 32 min read
23 cases cited (0 SG, 23 foreign)

Catchwords

Whether an accused person, upon being investigated under the Armed Forces Act 1972 and where the charge is not dealt with summarily, be remanded automatically under section 96(3) of the said Act without having to consider the remand procedures prescribed under section 94 of the Act and rules 4,15(1), 15(2), 16(1), and 38(1) of the Armed Forces (Court-Martial) Rules of Procedure 1976, with regard to remand pending trial by a Court Martial Whether an express remand order is required under section 96(3) of the Armed Forces Act 1972. Once there is an allegation of unlawful detention, the burden shifts to the detaining authority to show that the detention was made under a valid legal power

Practice Areas

Whether an accused person, upon being investigated under the Armed Forces Act 1972 and where the charge is not dealt with summarily, be remanded automatically under section 96(3) of the said Act without having to consider the remand procedures prescribed under section 94 of the Act and rules 4,15(1), 15(2), 16(1), and 38(1) of the Armed Forces (Court-Martial) Rules of Procedure 1976, with regard to remand pending trial by a Court Martial Whether an express remand order is required under section 96(3) of the Armed Forces Act 1972. Once there is an allegation of unlawful detention, the burden shifts to the detaining authority to show that the detention was made under a valid legal power

Judges (3)

Nordin bin Hassan Delivered Seri Vazeer Alam bin Mydin Meera Coram Utama Wan Ahmad Farid bin Wan Salleh Coram

Counsel (9)

Attorney General's Chambers Firm Shaharuddin Hidayu & Marwaliz Firm Dato' Hisyam Teh Poh Teik Counsel Appellant Low Wei Loke Counsel Appellant Norshafika bt Mustafa Counsel Appellant Nur Ezdiani bt Roleb Counsel Respondent Shaharuddin bin Mohamed Counsel Appellant Siti Norashikin bt Hassanor Counsel Respondent Wan Nur Muhammad Ehsan bin Alauddin Counsel Respondent

Parties (5)

Kerajaan Malaysia Respondent PANGLIMA ANGKATAN TENTERA MALAYSIA Respondent PIHAK BERKUASA SIDANG PANGLIMA BRIGED KELAPAN INFANTRI MALAYSIA Respondent Leftenan Kolonel-shaifullizan bin Abd Aziz Respondent Muhammad Maliki bin Abdul Halim Appellant

Case Significance

MUHAMMAD MALIKI BIN ABDUL HALIM v 1. ) LEFTENAN KOLONEL-SHAIFULLIZAN BIN ABD ... is a Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) decision dated November 10, 2025 (citation: 01f-29-09-2024d). <p>A military serviceman challenged his detention under the Armed Forces Act 1972, arguing that he was unlawfully detained without a proper remand order pending court-martial. The Federal Court held that section 96(3) of the Armed Forces Act, read with Rule 16(1) of the Armed Forces Rules of Procedure, authorised detention when a charge is not dealt with summarily, and that no express remand order is required. The appeal was dismissed and the Court of Appeal's decision was upheld.</p> The panel comprised Nordin bin Hassan, Seri Vazeer Alam bin Mydin Meera and Utama Wan Ahmad Farid bin Wan Salleh, with Nordin bin Hassan delivering the judgment.

Key issues: Whether an express remand order is required under section 96(3) of the Armed Forces Act 1972..

Summary

A military serviceman challenged his detention under the Armed Forces Act 1972, arguing that he was unlawfully detained without a proper remand order pending court-martial. The Federal Court held that section 96(3) of the Armed Forces Act, read with Rule 16(1) of the Armed Forces Rules of Procedure, authorised detention when a charge is not dealt with summarily, and that no express remand order is required. The appeal was dismissed and the Court of Appeal's decision was upheld.

What was the outcome of MUHAMMAD MALIKI BIN ABDUL HALIM v 1. ) LEFTENAN KOLONEL-SHAIFULLIZAN BIN ABD ...?

<p>A military serviceman challenged his detention under the Armed Forces Act 1972, arguing that he was unlawfully detained without a proper remand ord...

Statutes Cited

Armed Forces Act 1972
s 51
Armed Forces Act 1972
s 51 s 96(3)
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 593)
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Cap 234)
s 39B
Federal Constitution
Art 5(1)

Cases Cited (23)

UK (1)
[1942] AC 206
MY (21)
[1975] 2 MLJ 198 [1976] 2 MLJ 156 [1977] 2 MLJ 187 [1977] 2 MLJ 20 [1981] 1 MLJ 47 [1981] CLJ 39 [1987] 2 MLJ 173 [1993] 4 CLJ 211 [1994] 2 CLJ 806 [1994] 3 MLJ 611 [1996] 3 MLJ 611 [1996] 4 MLJ 184 [1998] 1 MLJ 757 [1998] 6 MLJ 501 [2003] 1 CLJ 309 [2009] 6 CLJ 705 [2011] 8 MLJ 1 [2020] 1 MLJ 14 [2020] 8 CLJ 147 [2023] 5 MLJ 548 [2025] 5 CLJ 509
IN (1)
AIR 1997 SC 1006