Does Article 150 oust judicial review of Emergency advice?

Question

Accepted Answer

Federal Court Asked to Rule on Judicial Review of Emergency Advice

PKR president Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is seeking a Federal Court determination on whether the judiciary possesses the authority to review advice tendered by the prime minister to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong concerning the suspension of Parliament under emergency legislation. This legal challenge stems from Anwar's broader lawsuit contesting Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin's advice that led to the proclamation of an Emergency and the subsequent suspension of parliamentary sittings. The core of Anwar's application revolves around four specific questions of law, which he contends require the Federal Court's definitive interpretation.
Questions on Cabinet Advice and Constitutional Review

The application, filed in the High Court, seeks to refer four pivotal questions of law to the Federal Court. A central inquiry concerns whether the Muhyiddin-led Cabinet's decision or advice to suspend Parliament falls within the purview of Article 150 of the Federal Constitution, particularly its exclusionary clauses. A further question directly addresses whether the Cabinet's advice to suspend Parliament is, in fact, subject to judicial review by the courts. These questions are foundational to Anwar's argument that the executive's actions in suspending Parliament may have exceeded constitutional boundaries.
Ambiguity of Ouster Clauses in Article 150

Anwar's legal team argues that the exclusionary provisions within Article 150(6) and Article 150(8) of the Federal Constitution may not unequivocally apply to the specific circumstances of his challenge. These clauses generally preclude courts from invalidating Emergency Ordinances or questioning the validity of Emergency proclamations. However, Anwar contends that his lawsuit targets the advice given to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, rather than the Emergency laws themselves. He posits that it remains ambiguous whether these ouster clauses extend to cover the advice provided by the Cabinet, a point he believes necessitates a clear pronouncement from the Federal Court.
Challenging the Basis of Exclusionary Clauses

The application also scrutinises constitutional provisions such as Section 39(2) of the Malaysia Act 1963 and Section 15(d) of the Constitutional (Amendment) Act 1981, which are cited as having led to the current formulation of Article 150(6) and Article 150(8). Article 150(6) stipulates that no provision of an Emergency Ordinance shall be deemed invalid even if inconsistent with the Federal Constitution, while Article 150(8) generally bars judicial jurisdiction over the validity of Emergency proclamations or ordinances. Anwar's challenge implicitly questions the validity and scope of these foundational provisions, arguing that their application to the prime minister's advice is unclear and potentially inconsistent with the Federal Constitution's basic structure.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Does Article 150 oust judicial review of Emergency advice?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends