Friday 29 Mar 2024
By
main news image

KUALA LUMPUR (August 19) : The Malaysian Bar has today posed five additional constitutional questions on the emergency proclamation to the High Court here, for it to be considered in their challenge of the validity of the proclamation of emergency and the emergency ordinance at the Federal Court.

It has already submitted 22 constitutional questions to the High Court. With these five, there are now 27 questions to be considered by the court to be brought to the Federal Court, which is the constitutional or apex court.

The additional questions were raised by Steven Thiru — the counsel representing the Malaysian Bar, who is also former Malaysian Bar president — when the case was called up this afternoon before Justice Datuk Ahmad Kamal Shahid.

They are:

1) Whether the Executive’s or Cabinet’s power during an emergency under Article 150(1) of the Federal Constitution extends to a power, exercised by the Cabinet acting on its own, to revoke the emergency ordinances promulgated by the Yang Dipertuan Agong (YDPA) under Article 150(2B), or whether the power of annulment or revocation rests solely with the YDPA and/or Parliament?

2) Whether the obligation to act on advice placed on the YDPA under Article 40(1) of the Federal Constitution applies to the continuance or revocation of emergency ordinances promulgated by the YDPA under Article 150(2B) while a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, that has been premised on his satisfaction that circumstances existed that rendered the promulgation of such ordinances necessary?

3) Whether, on a true and proper construction of the provisions in Article 150(3), a Proclamation of Emergency that has already expired and the emergency ordinances promulgated thereunder may still be the subject of a resolution or resolutions to annul the same by both Houses of Parliament, and if the answer is in the negative, the effect on the ordinances promulgated thereunder?

4) Whether executive action or a cabinet decision to unilaterally revoke the emergency ordinances promulgated by the YDPA under Article 150(2B) is valid, and if the result of such unilateral action is invalid, whether the emergency ordinances continue to be in force for a period of six months from the date of expiry of the Proclamation of Emergency under Article 150(7)?

5) Arising from the above, whether the timeline under Article 150(7) would apply to those ordinances that contain within themselves the limitation clause to withstand "for as long as the emergency is in force", such that in the case of this class of ordinances or the affected provisions governed by this limitation, their expiry would have been on Aug 1, 2021, along with the expiry of the Proclamation of Emergency?

These additional questions arose after then de facto law minister Datuk Seri Takiyuddin Hassan announced in Dewan Rakyat last month that the emergency had been withdrawn on July 21, which prevented the matter from being debated in the House.

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong, however, subsequently announced that he had not assented to the withdrawal and wanted the matter to be debated.

The Malaysian Bar case has been fixed for further case management on Oct 4 before Justice Ahmad Kamal, with hearing fixed for Dec 1.

Besides the Malaysian Bar, the electoral watchdog Bersih 2.0 and six other civil society groups had also submitted constitutional questions on the emergency to the apex court.

Edited ByTan Choe Choe
      Print
      Text Size
      Share