Lawyer V. Vemal Arasan speaks to reporters at the Shah Alam High Court April 21, 2021. — Picture by Miera Zulyana
Subscribe to our Telegram channel for the latest updates on news you need to know.
KUALA LUMPUR, May 6 — The High Court in Shah Alam today allowed Nigerian man Simon Adavize Momoh to proceed with his lawsuit to challenge the Immigration Department’s cancellation of his spouse visa and to challenge its order to deport him.
Simon’s lawyer V. Vemal Arasan confirmed that High Court judge Datuk Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh had granted leave for Simon’s lawsuit to be heard.
“Leave for judicial review was granted today. There were no objections by the respondents.
“Immigration also gave a letter stating that Simon’s pass will be extended until the hearing of this case is over,” he told Malay Mail today.
On April 20, Simon had filed the lawsuit via a judicial review application against the Immigration director-general and the home minister, seeking for six specific court orders to ensure that he can stay on in Malaysia with his Malaysian wife and their two young Malaysian children.
In the judicial review, Simon is seeking six specific court orders, including a certiorari order to quash the respondents’ decision to revoke his social visit pass and to issue the perintah tahan usir or order to detain and deport him, and for a stay on any actions to deport him until the judicial review is heard and decided on by the courts.
Simon is also seeking a declaration that the respondents did not act appropriately or acted beyond their jurisdiction in deciding to revoke his social visit pass and to issue the detention order (Perintah Tahan Usir), and is also seeking a prohibitory order to prevent the respondents from making any subsequent decision to revoke his social visit pass and to issue the order under the same circumstances.
Among the provisions cited by Simon in this lawsuit are Articles 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the Federal Constitution, which relate to the Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the country, and the fundamental liberties such as those covering liberty of person, and assurance that no person shall suffer greater punishment for an offence than the punishment prescribed by law, and equality before the law and equal protection of the law.
MORE TO COME