(Violent Extremism and Judicial Review in Related Cases: A Perspective on the Preventive Detention Laws of Malaysia)

Abstract

Resolution 2178 (2014) and the Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism (Plan of Action) of the United Nations called on its member states to develop a national plan of action that includes effective measures in preventing violent extremism. From a legal perspective, each state is required to ensure respect for the rule of law and human rights while enforcing the relevant laws. Judicial review is seen as one of the essential foundations for good governance in ensuring the rule of law. Basically, preventive detention laws are the primary choice of the executive body for detaining any person that is believed to act, or is likely to act in any manner which is prejudicial to national security. The law may also be used to deter violent extremists from becoming potential threats to public order and national security. Therefore, this article aims to analyze the extent to which Malaysian preventive detention laws are appropriate in addressing violent extremism and whether judicial review is given space in related cases. For that purpose, qualitative methods were used, and doctrinal library studies were conducted to collect data and information. The results show that the rights of detainees and the role of the courts to conduct judicial review in violent extremism cases are limited under the relevant laws. It is therefore, suggested that detainees and the judiciary be given more latitude on judicial reviews in violent extremism cases. In addition, there should be further studies to compare judicial review approaches on violent extremism cases in other countries. This will help to amend or improve the related provisions on preventive detention law in Malaysia.