[ad_1]
KUALA LUMPUR (Bernama): The High Court here on Thursday (September 3) ruled that the one-day session of Parliament on May 18 was valid and in accordance with the law, although it was unusual and unprecedented, to prevent the spread of Covid- 19.
Judge Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid made the decision after dismissing an initial subpoena filed by lawyer R. Kengadharan and a social activist, D. Arumugam, against Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and former Dewan Rakyat spokesperson Tan Sri Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof, for a statement that the one-day session of Parliament was unconstitutional.
“I have no doubt that the one-day session is unusual and unprecedented, but for me it is not illegal, but legal under the law,” he said.
The judge said that the two letters from the Leader of the House, who is the Prime Minister, dated April 17 and May 12, which established May 18 as the only day for the session of Parliament and that it was only for Hearing Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s actual speech on the danger of the Covid-19 pandemic was fair and reasonable.
He said the fact that the government had a one-day session was reasonable and valid, as the government had every right to protect the lives of Chamber members from the risk of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Kengadharan and Arumugam filed the lawsuit on May 15, naming Muhyiddin and Mohamad Ariff as the first and second defendants, respectively, for a statement that the May 18 session of Parliament was null and void as they only heard the speech. of Yang di-Pertuan Agong and thus violated Article 55 (1) of the Federal Constitution.
They claimed that the first session was illusory as there were no other major events that took place as set out in Permanent Decree 14 of the Dewan Rakyat.
Dewan Rakyat’s Secretary Nizam Mydin Bacha Mydin, in his affidavit filed on behalf of Muhyiddin and Mohamad Ariff, said that the May 18 session of Parliament was in accordance with the Federal Constitution and the Dewan Rakyat Standing Order.
He said that Kengadharan and Arumugam’s request has no merit, as the validity of any Dewan Rakyat proceedings cannot be challenged in any court as stipulated in Article 63 (1) of the Federal Constitution.
On May 13, Mohamad Ariff, in a statement said that he had received a notification letter signed by the Prime Minister as Ketua Majlis stating that the government has decided that the agenda for the First Meeting of the Third Session of the 14th Parliament, which will take place for one day, it has been modified to focus solely on the Royal Direction.
He said this was due to the fact that the Covid-19 pandemic in the country was not over yet.
Judge Ahmad Kamal, in his 16-page sentence, said the court also determined that the House leader, being the country’s prime minister, must have taken all relevant considerations, for example, relevant expert reports, documents and information. and also the current status of the pandemic as presented to him by the relevant government agencies and experts, especially health experts, before sending the two letters to Dewan Rakyat’s secretary.
He said the court disagreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that the only day he sat down due to the Covid-19 pandemic was simply a fig leaf.
“The plaintiffs claimed that the legislatures of the United Kingdom, Singapore and Canada have met to pass the legislation necessary for the Covid-19 pandemic.
“I am of the opinion that each country in the world faces its own unique circumstances and challenges when facing the pandemic and therefore each government has its own practices, strategies and solutions to face these unprecedented circumstances.
“I am also of the considered opinion that the one-day session does not violate the doctrine of the separation of powers or prevent Parliament from carrying out its exclusive constitutional duties,” the judge said.
The judge further said that the reason or justification given by the government, namely the Covid-19 pandemic, was reasonable to avoid the risk of spreading Covid-19 and avoid the creation of another group.
“For me, as long as the government has given a reasonable justification and explanation for why the session is being held, this court will not interfere with the government’s reasons or conclusions,” he added.
Judge Ahmad Kamal said that the one-day session of the Dewan Rakyat also met the criteria of article 55 (1) of the Federal Constitution, which states that Parliament will meet again no more than six months after the last session.
“In the present case, Parliament met again within six months of the last session, for example, on December 19 last year. I am also of the opinion that it is within the constitutional rights of the government to meet. even for one day as long as it is within six months of the last session, “he added.
Ahmad Kamal stated that based on the Standing Order 11 (2) of the Dewan Rakyat, it is the responsibility of the Leader of the House, who is the Prime Minister, to determine the dates of the sessions of Parliament and to vary them from time to time. dates so fixed.
He said that the task of setting dates and determining the agenda are an integral part of Dewan Rakyat’s procedures, and therefore the task of Parliament is immune from judicial interference.
“I am also of the opinion that even if the one-day session is not in accordance with the Standing Orders, it will not amount to a breach of the Work Orders, nor can it be declared invalid for violating the constitution.” the judge said, adding that the plaintiffs’ request for a statement has no merit in law.
As such, it dismissed the application.
Meanwhile, Kengadharan and Arumugam, represented by lawyer Datuk Bastian Vendargon, when meeting outside the court said they would file an appeal against the decision.
Senior Federal Attorneys Suzana Atan and S. Narkunavathy acted on behalf of the defendants. – Bernama
[ad_2]
