Sept 30 ruling on challenge to emergency proclamation, ordinances

 

Parties, in the appeal over whether Parliament can be bypassed in an emergency, say a ruling is needed for future reference.

PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal will deliver its verdict on Sept 30 whether judges could hear the merit of complaints by litigants challenging the constitutionality of the emergency proclamation and suspension of Parliament, and the state legislative assemblies.

A court officer informed parties that a three-member bench chaired by Has Zanah Mehat had reserved judgment as they needed more time to deliberate on the issues raised in two appeals.

The other judges were Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera and Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim.

“The judges need more time to deliberate on the issues raised,” she said.

Earlier, the bench broke for recess and Has Zanah said they would deliberate to deliver a ruling.

Today, counsel Gurdial Singh Nijar, appearing for MPs Hassan Abdul Karim (Pasir Gudang), Salahuddin Ayub (Pulai) and Johari Abdul (Sungai Petani) and Tebing Tinggi assemblyman Abdul Aziz Bari, submitted that leave for judicial review ought to have been granted as important constitutional points were raised by his clients.

“One is whether Parliament, which is the representative of the people, could be bypassed during an emergency,” he said.

“The executive cannot rule as Article 43 (of the Federal Constitution) states the Cabinet shall be collectively responsible to Parliament,” said Gurdial, appearing with Christopher Leong and Razlan Hadri Zulkifli.

Andrew Khoo held a watching brief on behalf of the Malaysian Bar.

Senior federal counsel Suzana Atan submitted that Article 150(8) did not allow the appellants to challenge the proclamation and the ordinances.

“An ouster clause in the Constitution also states that no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or determine the validity of the proclamation and ordinances or their continued existence,” said Suzana, who was assisted by S Narkunavathy and Noor Atiqah Zainal Abidin.

All parties agreed the appeal was not academic as six ordinances had not been revoked though the Emergency came to an end on Aug 1.

On April 26, judicial commissioner Evrol Mariette Peters dismissed Hassan’s leave application for judicial review as the judge – by way of analogy – emphasised that the “door to the court was currently locked and it did not have the key”.

On March 11, another High Court judge in Kuala Lumpur, Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid, also ruled that any challenge made against the King’s emergency proclamation and the ordinances was not amenable to judicial review.

Kamal said Article 150(8), which states that the King’s decision cannot be challenged in any court on any grounds, was valid and constitutional. - FMT