[ad_1]
KUALA LUMPUR: A lawyer is seeking legal redress as to whether Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s decision not to declare an emergency, as advised by Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin, can be challenged in court.
The plaintiff, Syed Iskandar Jaafar al-Mahdzar, has raised two legal issues.
Are:
- Whether in a true interpretation of Articles 40 and 150 of the Federal Constitution, the King has unlimited discretion not to declare an emergency despite the advice of the Prime Minister or the Cabinet, and;
- If an amendment to article 150, by adding clauses (8) and (9), violates the basic structure of the constitution, as regards article 4 (1).
Clause 8 states that a legal challenge cannot be mounted once the King is satisfied, an emergency is not required.
Clause 9 states that Parliament (Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara) should be considered to be meeting “only if the members of both houses are meeting and conducting business.”
Article 4 (1) states that the constitution is the supreme law of the land and the law passed that is against the charter must be declared void.
The lawyer said he believed the legal issues raised were important to upholding the rule of law and protecting the constitution.
Syed Iskandar, who named the government as the defendant, today filed the original subpoena in High Court through Messrs. R. Kengadharan & Co.
In an affidavit in support of the action, Syed Iskandar respectfully said that the King, by not accepting the advice of the prime minister or his Cabinet, failed to fulfill his role in accordance with articles 40 and 150.
“I also humbly declare that the King’s decision has raised constitutional issues of public importance,” he added.
On October 23, Muhyiddin advised the king to issue an emergency proclamation under article 150 after the cabinet settled the matter in a special meeting.
Two days later, after a special meeting between the Malaysian rulers, the king decreed that an emergency proclamation was not necessary in all or part of the country.
Syed Iskandar said: “This is a rejection of the prime minister’s advice.”
He said the amendment to article 150 to include clauses 8 and 9 violated the constitution and should be declared null and void, adding that Parliament has no authority to amend the constitution to exclude the court from investigating the validity of the law.
“The amendment completely violated the court’s power of judicial review, which is part of the basic structure of the constitution.”
He also said that the inclusion of clause 9 also violated the doctrine of parliamentary democracy, which is another basic structure of the constitution.
