KUALA LUMPUR – Former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, three other MPs and a senator are seeking to join in a suit filed by lawyer Syed Iskandar Syed Jaafar over the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s decision to refuse to proclaim an emergency last year.
The intervener application was filed on January 12 by Dr Mahathir, who is also Langkawi MP, Datuk Seri Mukhriz Mahathir (Jerlun), Datuk Amiruddin Hamzah (Kubang Pasu), Datuk Shahruddin Md Salleh (Sri Gading) and Senator Datuk Marzuki Yahya through law firm Messrs Law Practice of Rafique.
According to a Malaysiakini report, the former Bersatu members are in a bid to intervene in the suit by Syed Iskandar, who is seeking the court’s guidance on the constitutional issue linked to the king’s decision not to consent to Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin’s request for an emergency.
Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri'ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah, on October 25 last year, rejected the prime minister’s request on the grounds that the Perikatan Nasional government was handling the Covid-19 crisis effectively.
Last week, however, the king consented to a fresh request by Muhyiddin for an emergency to be declared to contain the virus threat.
The intervener bid by the five former Bersatu leaders is part of a growing list of individuals, most of whom are lawyers, seeking to do the same.
Others include the Muslim Lawyers’ Association of Malaysia; lawyers Mohd Khairul Azam Abdul Aziz, Malcolm Fernandez and Nazira Abdul Rahim; and, non-governmental organisation Centre for a Better Tomorrow.
In a copy of the intervenor application sighted by Malaysiakini, the five proposed intervenors said they should be included in the suit because of “their constitutional rights to safeguard, protect and uphold the federal constitution”.
They also said they would be very much affected by any court decision in the suit because of their constitutional rights to debate and vote in the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara on any enactment and amendment to laws, as well as to convey the voice of the people in these sessions.
“The proposed intervenors, as MPs, have the constitutional rights to give testimony and raise submission, to help this honourable court make the proper legal finding over the originating summons (filed by Syed Iskandar).
“The proposed intervenors, as MPs, have a legal duty to safeguard, protect and uphold the sovereignty of the federal constitution from being contravened by any quarters.”
However, Syed Iskandar told the news portal that he will object to the bid filed by the group led by Dr Mahathir.
“I have instructed my lawyer to object. I issued the instruction last night,” he said, adding that the application is not supported by valid grounds.
It was previously reported that he will raise objections to the other intervenor applications as well, on the grounds that they purportedly do not have any legal interest in the matter.
Syed Iskandar is seeking for the court to determine, among others, whether the Agong “has an unfettered discretion not to declare an emergency despite the advice of the prime minister of the federal cabinet to the contrary”.
He also wants the court to determine this through the true construction of Articles 40 and 150 of the constitution.
Article 40 generally deals with the need for the king to act in accordance with the advice of the cabinet or a minister acting under the general authority of the cabinet, among others.
“This is a public-interest litigation brought to vindicate the rule of law and to uphold the federal constitution,” said the plaintiff in his suit.
Article 150 deals with the power of the Agong to proclaim an emergency when the security, economic life or public order in the federation, or any part thereof, is threatened, among others.
Syed Iskandar is also seeking for the court to determine the validity of an amendment to Article 150, which inserted clauses that, among others, bar the court from hearing legal action in relation to the issue of a proclamation of emergency.
Among the changes is the insertion of Article 150(8), which states that no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or determine any application, question or proceeding, in whatever form, on any ground, regarding the validity of a proclamation of emergency. – The Vibes, January 18, 2021
