Kerajaan Malaysia v LFL Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2025] 1 MLRA 327

Kerajaan Malaysia v LFL Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2025] 1 MLRA 327

Federal Court (Putrajaya) 

State Immunity & Constitutional Rights: The Extraterritorial Impact of Singapore’s POFMA in Malaysian Courts

1. The Respondent, LFL, is a Malaysian NGO. The Appellants are the Government of Malaysia and the Attorney General of Malaysia (AGM).
2. The conflict began in early 2020 after the Respondent published a statement criticizing Singapore’s execution methods as “unlawful and brutal”. In response, Singaporean authorities issued a Correction Direction under their Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (POFMA). This order demanded that the Respondent post a correction or face potential criminal prosecution in Singapore.
3. The Respondent did not comply and instead filed two Originating Summonses (OS) in the Malaysian High Court –

(a) OS 46 (against the Government of Malaysia), the Respondent sought declarations regarding their right to express their opinion in Malaysia under paragraph (a) Clause (1) of Article 10 of the Federal Constitution and a declaration that their rights could not be impaired by Singaporean law (POFMA) acting extraterritorially.

(b) OS 51 (against the Singapore Minister of Home Affairs), the Respondent sought declarations that the POFMA direction (Correction Direction) could not be enforced in Malaysia and an injunction to restrain the Minister from enforcing Singaporean laws within Malaysia. 

(c) The AGM intervened in OS 51. Both the Government of Malaysia and the AGM applied to strike out the summonses on the grounds that they were scandalous, vexatious, frivolous and an abuse of the Court process. The High Court allowed the striking out but the Court of Appeal reversed this decision, remitting the cases for a full hearing. The Government of Malaysia and AGM then appealed to the Federal Court.

1. Whether the act of the Singapore Home Affairs Minister (issuing the POFMA direction) amounted to a public act of a sovereign state, thereby attracting state immunity from the jurisdiction of Malaysian Courts.
2. Whether the Malaysian Courts have the jurisdiction to determine if a foreign law (POFMA) has an invalid extraterritorial effect on a Malaysian citizen’s constitutional rights.

(1) Whether the act of the Singapore Home Affairs Minister (issuing the POFMA direction) amounted to a public act of a sovereign state, thereby attracting state immunity from the jurisdiction of Malaysian Courts.

(a) The Federal Court ruled that the act of the Singapore Home Affairs Minister in issuing a POFMA Correction Direction was a public act of a sovereign state that attracted state immunity, thereby barring the adjudicative jurisdiction of Malaysian Courts over him.

(b) The Federal Court held that the issuance of a certificate by the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs recognizing a country as a foreign sovereign constitutes conclusive evidence of that status. This principle had been referred from the case of Commonwealth of Australia v Midford (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor [1990] 1 MLRA 364.

(c) Under the ‘one voice principle’ which had been referred to by the Federal Court in the case of Deutsche Bank AG London Branch v Receivers Appointed by The Court [2021] UKSC 57, the judiciary must defer to the executive branch on matters of foreign policy. The Court cannot speak with two voices by contradicting the executive’s recognition of a fellow sovereign.

(d) Immunity applies to public acts (jure imperii) undertaken by a state in relation to its governmental functions. The Federal Court determined that the Singaporean Minister was acting in his official capacity under statutory powers and such acts do not fall under the restricted immunity exceptions (like commercial or employment contracts).

(e) State immunity is a jurisdictional immunity that is procedural in nature rather than substantive. It serves as a procedural bar on a national Court’s power to determine rights and must be addressed as a threshold matter before a Court can examine the merits of a case.

(2) Whether the Malaysian Courts have the jurisdiction to determine if a foreign law (POFMA) has an invalid extraterritorial effect on a Malaysian citizen’s constitutional rights.

(a) The Federal Court ruled that while it lacked jurisdiction over the foreign minister, Malaysian Courts do have jurisdiction to determine if a foreign law (POFMA) has an invalid extraterritorial effect on the constitutional rights of Malaysian citizens within Malaysia.

(b) While states may extend the reach of local laws beyond their borders, such expansion must be predicated on a “recognized basis in international law”, such as the effects doctrine or the passive personality principle.

(c) For extraterritorial prescriptive jurisdiction to be valid, there must be an “obviously substantial link” between the enacting state and the regulated activity. This requires an evaluation of whether the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable, taking into account the strength of the link and the foreseeable effects within the state.

(d) The Federal Court held that a challenge regarding the compatibility of a foreign law’s extraterritorial jurisdiction with paragraph (a) of Clause (1) Article 10 of the Federal Constitution is not “obviously and plainly unsustainable”. Such a dispute involving only Malaysian parties (LFL and the Government of Malaysia) falls squarely within the jurisdiction of Malaysian courts.

1. The Federal Court reached a unanimous decision with two different outcomes for the appeals.
2. Appeal No. 16 (appeal for OS 51) by the Attorney General (Allowed), the Federal Court struck out OS 51 against the Singapore Home Affairs Minister, ruling that it was not open to Malaysian Courts to examine the merits of a suit against a sovereign official protected by state immunity.
3. Appeal No. 17 (appeal for OS 46) by the Government of Malaysia (Dismissed), the Federal Court allowed OS 46 against the Government of Malaysia to proceed to a full hearing. 
4. However, the Federal Court amended the reliefs to limit the hearing to a declaration regarding the extraterritorial jurisdiction of POFMA in light of paragraph (a) of Clause (1) Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. The Federal Court disallowed any prayers that encroached upon state immunity.

1. The judiciary must defer to the executive branch on matters of foreign policy, if the Government certifies a foreign entity as a sovereign, the Courts must accept it.
2. Questions of immunity are preliminary issues that must be expeditiously decided at the outset (in limine litis) to protect the foreign state from being subjected to the national Court’s process entirely.
3. While sovereign officials are immune, the reach of foreign legislation within Malaysia is a valid subject for judicial scrutiny, especially when it concerns the construction of the Federal Constitution and the fundamental rights of local citizens.
4. A case will only be struck out if it is “plainly and obviously unsustainable”, complex questions of public international law and extraterritoriality generally require a full hearing.