Royal emergency proclamation cannot be questioned in court: Court of Appeal

 

Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim and four other lawmakers failed in their appeal to quash then-premier Muhyiddin Yassin’s royal advice for suspension of Parliament during the emergency.

In a unanimous ruling today, the three-person Court of Appeal bench chaired by Has Zanah Mehat dismissed the appeals by Port Dickson MP Anwar and the four other lawmakers.

The other appellants are Pulai MP Salahuddin Ayub, Sungai Petani MP Johari Abdul, Tebing Tinggi assemblyperson Abdul Aziz Bari and Pasir Gudang MP Hassan Abdul Karim.

In a unanimous decision today, Has ruled that the lower courts have not erred in their decision to dismiss the judicial review leave applications by the five opposition lawmakers.

She said that the courts do not have jurisdiction to hear legal challenges linked to the issue of the Agong’s proclamation of emergency.

The bench, also presided by Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera and Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim, has previously heard submissions from the lawmakers’ lawyers and senior federal counsel from the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), over the appeal to obtain leave to commence judicial review targeting the validity of Muhyiddin’s advice to the Agong.

Previously, Anwar, Hassan as well as Salahuddin, Johari and Aziz, have filed three separate but similar legal challenges against Muhyiddin’s royal advice for the suspension of Parliament during the emergency.

The three legal actions had targeted the validity of the decision of the then Muhyiddin-led cabinet to advise His Majesty to promulgate Section 14 of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance 2021.

However, three separate High Court benches gave unfavourable rulings to the legal actions by Anwar, Hassan as well as Salahuddin, Johari and Aziz.

The High Court had agreed with submissions from the AGC that Articles 150(6) and 150(8) of the Federal Constitution ousted the courts from having jurisdiction to hear legal challenges linked to the Agong's proclamation of emergency.

'The High Court has not committed any error'

During today's online proceedings, Has said that lawmakers in Parliament have properly enacted Articles 150 (6) and (8) to remove the court's jurisdiction from hearing matters relating to the royal emergency proclamation.

"The judicial power under the law depends on what the Federal Constitution provides and not what some political thinkers think.

"It is trite that court jurisdiction depends on what the law provides," she said.

"We agree with the High Court decision that Parliament's intent to exclude the courts from (hearing legal challenges related to) the emergency proclamation and shut the court's door on an emergency proclamation by the YDPA (Yang di-Pertuan Agong)," she said.

Has said that the lower court has rightly ruled that Articles 150 (6) and (8) were constitutional and that the Agong's proclamation of emergency is final and conclusive as well as shall not be questioned in the courts of law.

"The wording of Clause 8 (of Article 150) is very clear, which insulates the matter from judicial scrutiny. It was passed by the required votes by members of Parliament.

"The Federal Constitution is the supreme law (of Malaysia), and the courts are bound by it," she said.

"The courts are not clothed with jurisdiction as the subject matter is not amenable to judicial review.

"Even if leave is granted (to proceed with judicial review to hearing of its merits), it would be an exercise in futility as the courts are prevented from questioning the YDPA proclamation of emergency.

"The High Court has not committed any error. We dismiss the three appeals with no order to costs," she ruled.

The appellants were represented by multiple lawyers, among them being Ramkarpal Singh, Gurdial Singh Nijar and Christopher Leong.

Lawyer Andrew Khoo conducted a watching brief for the Malaysian Bar. - Mkini