What legal actions can you take if, like Fahmi Reza, the Immigration bars you from leaving Malaysia for no reason?
Graphic artist and political activist Fahmi Reza made headlines nationwide recently after he was barred from leaving Malaysia on 7 June 2025. Taking to his Facebook page, he revealed that he was stopped by the Malaysian Immigration Department (JIM) before boarding his flight to Singapore at KLIA Terminal 2, with an officer telling him that Bukit Aman didn’t allow him to leave the country.
However, no reason for the travel ban was given, with the JIM officer telling Fahmi that he must ask Bukit Aman for the reason. Following the Facebook post going viral, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim instructed the Deputy Inspector-General of Police (IGP) to look into the matter, stressing that the MADANI Government upholds the freedom of movement as long as it doesn’t impact national security or existing laws.
Afterwards, IGP Tan Sri Razarudin Husain clarified that there were no official travel restrictions imposed on Fahmi, only that his name was included in the Royal Malaysia Police’s (PDRM) movement monitoring list for internal record and reference purposes due to ongoing investigations involving him. Razarudin added that there was ‘confusion’ during Fahmi’s exit clearance process, resulting in the erroneous issuance of a movement restriction order.
In another Facebook post, the political activist revealed that a few days after the incident, a check of travel restrictions on the JIM website yielded contradicting results. On the Bahasa Melayu version of the website, Fahmi was barred from leaving the country, while on the English version, there was no travel restriction.
A few days earlier, Fahmi asserted that he is taking the Government to court over the fiasco. Moreover, he criticised the Government’s lack of accountability on the issue. True to his words, the graphic artist on 13 June sent a letter of demand to Inspector-General of Police Razarudin Husain, immigration director-general Zakaria Shaaban, and home minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail for the removal of his name from all monitoring lists, the lifting of any travel restrictions, and compensation, the amount of which is yet to be determined.
So, what legal action can the political activist, or anyone who finds themselves in the same situation, take against the authorities for barring them from travelling overseas?
Well, join us as we examine the relevant laws and binding precedents on the matter.
The Constitutional right to freedom of movement
Every citizen has the right to freedom of movement. This is prescribed under Article 9 of the Federal Constitution below:
While freedom of movement is a Constitutional right, Article 9(2) prescribed that one’s freedom of movement can be restricted by law for the purposes of public order, public health, national security or for the punishment of offenders. Furthermore, the Federal Court has many times held that the right to leave Malaysia is a fundamental right guaranteed to all persons under Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution below:
The Federal Court in Maria Chin Abdullah v Ketua Pengarah Imigresen & Anor [2021] MLJU 12 established that the right to travel abroad stems from the fundamental right to life under Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution.
Is the right to travel overseas a recognised right in Malaysia?
Despite the above ruling, the Federal Court has actually been divisive on whether the right to travel abroad is not a recognised right in Malaysia. In the case of Government of Malaysia v Loh Wai Kong [1979] 2 MLJ 33, the Federal Court ruled that travelling abroad is not a guaranteed right.
However, the Federal Court then departed from this position in Lee Kwan Woh v Public Prosecutor [2009] 5 MLJ 301, whereby it was held that, though obiter dicta, the right to travel abroad forms part of the fundamental rights guaranteed to all persons under Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution.
A few years later, the Federal Court in Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan v Victoria Jayaseele Martin [2016] 2 MLJ 309 reverted to its earlier position in 1979, ruling that travelling abroad is not a guaranteed right in Malaysia.
The most recent case on the issue is the aforementioned Maria Chin Abdullah v Ketua Pengarah Imigresen & Anor [2021] MLJU 12, which reverts to the decision in Lee Kwan Woh v Public Prosecutor [2009] 5 MLJ 301, establishing that the right to travel abroad is a guaranteed right stemming from Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution.
There are no provisions in the Immigration Act 1959/63 to bar a citizen from travelling overseas
It is also worth noting that there is no general discretionary power for JIM to restrict a citizen’s right to travel in and out of Malaysia. There are no provisions in the Immigration Act 1959/63 specifically allowing the authority to bar travel out of the country.
In fact, there are only 2 specific legislations in Malaysia that allow for the right to travel abroad to be barred, which are Section 104 of the Income Tax Act 1967 and Section 38A(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967. Neither of these provisions applies to Fahmi.
In the case of Government of Malaysia v Loh Wai Kong [1979] 2 MLJ 33, the Federal Court established that the Government must act bona fide, fairly, honestly and honourably and can’t act in bad faith or abuse its discretionary power. Additionally, the Federal Court recognised that there are certain limited circumstances where the Government can restrict a person from travelling abroad, namely:
- A person for whom an arrest warrant has been issued
- A person who has been repatriated at the public expense, until the debt is paid
- Minor in certain circumstances, such as where a journey is known to be contrary to parental wishes
- On the grounds of public interest, to a person whose past or present activities are demonstrably undesirable
It is also untenable for JIM to restrict an individual from travelling abroad without giving any written reasons, as there is a duty to give reasons in law when such a right is denied. In fact, failing to specify why one is barred from travelling overseas implies that none exists, and that it’s merely a capricious exercise of discretion by the authorities to restrict an individual’s freedom of movement.
Fahmi can file a judicial review to challenge the travel ban
Circling back to the subject matter, one of the legal actions that Fahmi, or anyone who finds themselves in a similar situation, can take for being barred from travelling abroad is to file a judicial review challenging the travel ban. In simple terms, a judicial review is a court action meant to challenge decisions, actions or omissions by public bodies.
Moreover, a judicial review can be initiated by any person who is “adversely affected” by a public law decision or anyone who has a real and genuine interest in the subject matter. In Malaysia, public bodies include government organs which perform public functions, which include JIM.
While Section 59A of the Immigration Act 1959/63 above prescribes that there shall be no judicial review in any court of any act done or any decision made by the Minister or the Director General, the Federal Court in the aforementioned case of Maria Chin Abdullah v Ketua Pengarah Imigresen & Anor [2021] MLJU 12 held that this provision is merely to limit the judicial power of the courts to procedural non-compliance by the decision maker. This means that while the decision itself is not amenable to judicial review, the procedural non-compliance remains reviewable.
Hence, Fahmi can file a judicial review to challenge the decision to bar him from travelling abroad. Should there be a written decision by JIM to impose the travel restriction on him, the judicial review can declare the decision unlawful.
Specifically, in the originating summons, the political activist can seek an order of Certiorari to quash the travel ban imposed by JIM and a declaration that the travel ban imposed is unlawful. Furthermore, Fahmi can also claim damages resulting from what had transpired.
However, given that there’s confusion as to whether there is any such directive for him to be barred from travelling overseas, Fahmi can also file an originating summons to declare that JIM’s action was unlawful and an order or mandamus to compel JIM to allow him to travel abroad with no restrictions, except if there are valid reasons in law. Moreover, he may also claim damages for the whole ordeal.
Moving forward, it remains to be seen whether Fahmi will file a judicial review for his freedom of movement being restricted. One thing’s for sure, should it be filed in court, all eyes will definitely be on the case as it’s a matter of public interest.
For more insights into the Malaysian legal system such as this, do make sure to follow us on Facebook and Instagram or visit our official website. You can also read our articles on the popular Malaysian news aggregator app Newswav here.
