MUHAMAD ZULZAMRI BIN HARUN v 1. ) LEFTENAN KOLONEL MOHD FAEZAL BIN MAHAMAD TUDM, YANG DIPERTUA MAHKAMAH TENTERA 2. ) BRIGEDIER JENERAL DR. NORAZRIN BIN SHAMSUDIN TUDM, PEGAWAI SIDANG MAHKAMAH TENTERA/PEGAWAI PENGESAH 3. ) TIMBALAN PANGLIMA TENTERA UDARA LEFTENAN JENERAL DATO’ HAJI MUHAMAD NORAZLAN BIN ARIS 4. ) MAJLIS ANGKATAN TENTERA 5. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

ta-25-3-12-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 25 November 2025 • TA-25-3-12/2024 • 5 min read

Catchwords

Judicial Review – Military law – Court-martial – Convening authority – Whether convening officer possessed requisite command power – Temporary attachment of accused to Legal Branch – Whether accused was “under command” within meaning of s 104(4) Armed Forces Act 1972 – Delegation of power – Whether lack of command renders proceedings void ab initio – Effect of jurisdictional defect – Armed Forces Act 1972, s 104 – Federal Constitution, arts 5(1), 8(1), 137(1). Military law – Court-martial – Drug offence – Positive urine test – Alleged non-compliance with PMAT 4/2009 – Use of non-prescribed forms – Absence of Donor’s Declaration – Whether procedural irregularities vitiate proceedings – Chain of custody – Role of chemist – Whether failure to produce calibration certificate fatal – Armed Forces Act 1972, ss 51, 87 – Evidence Act 1950, s 90A. Military law – Standing orders – Proof of existence and validity – Whether standing order duly made and published under s 51(3) Armed Forces Act 1972 – Whether accused knew or ought to have known of prohibition – Presumption of knowledge – Ignorance of standing orders – Whether Division One Order relevant to proof of knowledge. Military law – Court-martial procedure – Recording of finding – Whether announcement of “guilty” sufficient compliance with r 82 and Seventh Schedule Armed Forces (Court-Martial) Rules of Procedure 1976 – Whether omission to use word “conviction” fatal. Military law – Confirmation proceedings – Duty of confirming officer – Whether confirming officer obliged to review full trial record – Failure to file petition against finding – Scope of powers under ss 122, 123, 125 Armed Forces Act 1972 – Whether confirmation invalid. Judicial Review – Scope – Military tribunals – Distinction between appeal and review – Whether High Court may re-evaluate evidence – Exceptional circumstances – Jurisdictional error and breach of natural justice – Discretionary relief.

Practice Areas

Administrative Law Constitutional Law Evidence Criminal Procedure

Judges (1)

Yusrin Faidz bin Yusoff Delivered

Parties (6)

BRIGEDIER JENERAL DR. NORAZRIN BIN SHAMSUDIN TUDM, PEGAWAI SIDANG MAHKAMAH TENTERA/PEGAWAI PENGESAH Respondent Kerajaan Malaysia Respondent LEFTENAN KOLONEL MOHD FAEZAL BIN MAHAMAD TUDM, YANG DIPERTUA MAHKAMAH TENTERA Respondent Majlis Angkatan Tentera Respondent TIMBALAN PANGLIMA TENTERA UDARA LEFTENAN JENERAL DATO’ HAJI MUHAMAD NORAZLAN BIN ARIS Respondent Muhamad Zulzamri bin Harun Applicant

Case Significance

A judicial review of a court-martial's jurisdiction, turning on whether a serviceman temporarily attached to the Legal Branch was 'under command' under section 104(4) of the Armed Forces Act 1972.

This High Court decision concerns an application for judicial review challenging the validity of a court-martial convened under the Armed Forces Act 1972, brought by a serviceman who had been tried by that court-martial for a drug-related offence following a positive urine test. The challenge went to the very foundation of the court-martial's authority rather than to the merits of the finding.

The decisive question was whether the officer who convened the court-martial possessed the requisite command power over the applicant. At the material time the applicant had been temporarily attached to the Legal Branch, and the issue was whether, in those circumstances, he remained a person "under command" within the meaning of section 104(4) of the Armed Forces Act 1972, so that the convening officer had authority over him. This engaged questions about the proper delegation of the power to convene, and whether a temporary attachment displaced the ordinary command relationship on which the convening power depends. If the convening officer lacked command over the applicant, the argument ran, the court-martial was constituted without jurisdiction and its proceedings were void ab initio — a nullity from the outset that no subsequent step could cure.

The application also invoked the constitutional guarantees engaged when a serviceman's liberty is at stake, including the protection of life and personal liberty under Article 5(1), equality before the law under Article 8(1), and the provisions of Article 137(1) concerning the Armed Forces Council, situating the command-power question within the framework of military justice under the Federal Constitution. The judgment is a useful illustration of how the jurisdiction of a court-martial depends on the convening officer's command power under section 104 of the Armed Forces Act 1972, and of how a temporary attachment to another branch can put in issue whether an accused was "under command" for that purpose.

What was the core challenge to the court-martial?

The applicant contended that the officer who convened the court-martial lacked command power over him because he had been temporarily attached to the Legal Branch and so may not have been a person 'under command' within section 104(4) of the Armed Forces Act 1972, which would leave the court-martial without jurisdiction.

What was said to follow if the convening officer lacked command?

If the convening officer had no command over the applicant, the court-martial would be constituted without jurisdiction and its proceedings void ab initio — a nullity from the outset — a question the applicant framed against the constitutional guarantees in Articles 5(1), 8(1) and 137(1).

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ta-25-3-12-2024)