THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE WAN ADNAN BIN ISMAIL, SPMT, DSMT, KMN, JP PPT, CHIEF JUSTICE OF MALAYA, IN THE NAME OF

THE YANG DIPERTUAN AGUNG.

To:-

1. Minister of Home Affairs, Malaysia

2. Tan Sri Abdul Rahim bin Noor

3. Government of Malaysia

all three defendants

c/o Peguam Negara

Jabatan Peguam Negara

Bangunan Bank Rakyat

Tingkat 5, 11 — 20,

Jalan Tangsi, 50512 Kuala Lumpur.

We command you that within eight (8) days after the service of this writ on you, inclusive of the day of such service, you do cause an appearance to be entered for you in a cause at the suit of Dato' Sen Anwar Bin Ibrahim presently on remand at Penjara Sg. Buloh, Jalan Hadapan, 47600 Sg. Buloh, Selangor Darul Ehsan and take notice, that in default of your so doing, the plaintiff may proceed therein to judgment and execution.

WITNESSED by Senior Assistant Registraration of the High Court in Kuala Lumpur on day of .........., 1999.

______________________                               _______________________             Solicitors for the plaintiff                                      Senior Assistant Registration                                                                                                       High Court, Kuala Lumpur

This writ may not be served more that twelve (12) calendar months after the above date unless renewed by order of court. The defendant may appear hereto by entering an appearance either personally or by a solicitors at the Registry of the High Court, Kuala Lumpur.

A defendant appearing personally may, if he desires, enter his appearance by post, and the appropriate forms may be obtained by sending a Postal Order for RM 10.00 with an addressed Envelope to the Senior Assistant Registrar, High Court, Kuala Lumpur.

1. The plaintiff is the Member of Parliament for Permatang Pauh and was until 2 September, 1998 when the first defendant unlawfully removed him from office, Deputy Prime Minister, Malaysia and Minister of Finance;

2. The first defendant is, and was at all material times, the Minister of Home Affairs, Malaysia charged with responsibility of the Royal Malaysia Police;

3. The second defendant was at all material times the Inspector-General of Police under whose command come all members of the Royal Malaysia Police. The second defendant was at all material times responsible to the first defendant for the control and direction of the Royal Malaysia Police;

4. The third defendant is the Government of Malaysia, the principal of the first and second defendants, who were at all material times acting as its agents and/or servants and the third defendant is, accordingly, vicariously liable for all the acts defaults and/or omissions of the first and second defendants;

5. The plaintiff was arrested on 20 September, 1998 at his residence in Kuala Lumpur at about 10 p.m. Some policemen who entered the plaintiffs residence were wearing ski masks and armed. Before entering the house, the police broke down the front door roughing up some people who were present. The plaintiff was taken away by the police in a van;

6. the plaintiff was taken to Bukit Aman and placed in a cell. Between 11 p.m. and 11.30 p.m. the plaintiff was blindfolded and handcuffed from behind. As he was handcuffed and blindfolded, the plaintiff was ordered to stand up. Suddenly, the plaintiff felt a hard punch on his left forehead. The plaintiff was also hit on the head and beaten severely on the left side of his neck. He was slapped several times severely until blood ran down from his nose and mouth;

7. The plaintiff pleads further that he was barely conscious when a few police personnel helped wipe off the blood after which the plaintiff fell unconscious;

8. The next day, the plaintiff felt an enormous swelling on his left eye which he could not open. The plaintiff pleads the blows to his neck worsened his old injury and this affected the nerves on the' plaintiff's left hand which he could not move for some time;

9. The plaintiff pleads he could not walk properly and had to be assisted by policemen.

10. The plaintiff appealed for medical treatment but received none for almost five days;

11. The plaintiff pleads further, three days after his arrest, he was put in solitary confinement at an unknown place where his pleas for medical attention were also ignored;

12. The plaintiff pleads it was only on the fifth day that he was allowed to be treated by a woman doctor;

13. The plaintiff pleads when he was returned to Bukit Aman, he wanted to lodge a complaint in relation to what had transpired and the trauma he had undergone, but to no avail;

14. The plaintiff pleads it was on the seventh day when an officer from the Criminal Investigation Department came to question him, that he was allowed to lodge a police report and obtain medical treatment;

15. The plaintiff pleads he was kept in solitary confinement for several days when he was disallowed any reading materials, but was allowed to pray and recite the Quran;

16. On 30 September, 1998 the first defendant publicly stated the possibility of the injuries on the plaintiff being self-inflicted, could not be dismissed despite the obvious unliklihood of such an eventuality. The first defendant suggested that in the alternative the plaintiff may have provoked the police. The plaintiff pleads the first defendant made his observations aforesaid recklessly and without reasonable and probable cause or basis thereby aggravating and compounding the manifest injustice perpetrated upon the plaintiff;

17. By reason of the matters aforesaid, the plaintiff has suffered injuries, loss and damage;

(as found by Eye Specialist Dr. Ahmad Shukri Mohamad)

'In my expert opinion, Anwar Ibrahim was assaulted over the left forehead and neck and received blunt trauma that resulted in residual bruises over the left upper and lower eyelids and residual tenderness over the left side of his neck. The eyelid bruises must have been the result of blood tracking down from the left forehead injury under the skin into the eyelid area'.

18. The plaintiff pleads it was police personnel who were responsible for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff while in police custody as adverted to hereinbefore and publicly confirmed by the Attorney-General, Malaysia on 5 January, 1999. In fact, the second defendant in tendering his resignation on 7 January, 1999 assumed full responsibility for what the plaintiff had been made to undergo by police personnel in flagrant disregard of the law.

19. The plaintiff pleads he has suffered trauma, humiliation, distress and indignity;

20. The plaintiff pleads he is entitled to exemplary damages having regard to the arbitrariness, oppressiveness and constitutionality of the acts of the police personnel who inflicted the injuries complained of on him. The acts of the police personnel concerned were wanton, wilful and highhanded;

21. The plaintiff pleads he is also entitled to aggravated damages having regard to the outrageous conduct of the police personnel concerned.

22. Wherefore the plaintiff prays for the following relief against the defendants:-

                    a. Damages (including aggravated and exemplary damages);

Dated this ......... day of January, 1999.

_____________________________

Solicitors for the Plaintiff abovenamed

This writ of summons is filed on behalf of the plaintiff abovenamed by his solicitors Messrs Karpal Singh & Company, whose address for service is at No. 67, Jalan Pudu Lama, 50200 Kuala Lumpur.