PKR lawmaker Hassan Karim, who is also a lawyer, has weighed in on the High Court’s decision regarding Najib Abdul Razak’s house arrest bid, expressing surprise that the judge did not take into account Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s 2018 pardon.
The Pasir Gudang MP also echoed the concerns of former premier Najib’s counsel, Shafee Abdullah, saying the ruling undermines the discretionary powers of the rulers and cautioned that it could set a precedent.
“The public now asks why the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in 2018 was able to fully pardon Anwar, allowing him to be released from prison even though his sentence had not been fully served. Why could Anwar be pardoned, but Najib could not (be accorded to house arrest)?” he said in a statement.
Hassan (above) stressed that the decision should be referred to the Court of Appeal and ultimately to senior appellate judges to ensure any potential error does not establish a precedent that erodes the prerogative powers and discretionary authority of the Malay rulers.
He urged the judiciary to compare the High Court’s ruling with the Federal Court’s decision, which upheld the Agong’s pardon of Anwar.
“All attempts to challenge Anwar’s pardon were rejected by the Kuala Lumpur High Court, the Court of Appeal, and ultimately the Federal Court.
“It is therefore odd that (Kuala Lumpur High Court) judge Alice Loke did not consider, reflect on, or learn from the Anwar pardon case,” he added.
Including a caveat that he does not intend to criticise the judge or her decision, Hassan also pointed out that the Malay rulers existed long before the crafting of the Federal Constitution, underscoring the enduring significance of their prerogative powers.
“It should be remembered by all parties, including judges, that the Malay rulers existed in the nine states of Peninsular Malaysia long before the Federal Constitution came into being.
“These Malay rulers agreed to respect the aspirations of the people for a parliamentary democracy, accepting the loss of much of their feudal powers to build a democratic and progressive nation.
“In return, the Federal Constitution grants certain discretionary powers and prerogatives to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Council of Malay Rulers, including the power to grant pardons,” he noted.
Malay rulers’ institution
Therefore, Hassan is of the view that the decision in rejecting the judicial review application regarding the addendum decree has significant implications not only for Najib himself but, more importantly, for the institution of the Malay rulers.
“This ruling does not free Najib from his charges but merely limits the possibility of him serving the remainder of his SRC International sentence under house arrest.
“This, in effect, tarnishes and insults the remaining vestiges of the Malay rulers’ power that still exist in the Federal Constitution,” he added.
Hassan emphasised that while the supremacy of the Federal Constitution must always be defended and upheld, the constitutional interpretation should not be so rigid or strict that it diminishes the institution of the Malay rulers, who form one of the pillars of Malaysia’s parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy.
Call for emergency meeting
Meanwhile, Umno supreme council member Puad Zarkashi, in a Facebook posting this evening, requested for an emergency supreme council meeting to discuss the implications of the ruling on the rulers’ discretionary powers.
Earlier, he also drew a comparison with Anwar’s royal pardon, questioning how it was deemed valid despite being granted before the appointments of an attorney-general and the federal territories minister.
This morning, the High Court ruled that the 16th Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s royal decree granting the former Umno president house arrest was invalid under the law.
“I’m of the view that a house arrest order is not capable of execution, no legal provision for such a mechanism in Malaysia,” the judge said. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.