Lawyer Seeks Leave to Appeal Over Agong's Refusal to Declare Emergency Five Years Ago

A senior lawyer has taken his battle to the highest court in the land, seeking leave to appeal against the Federal Court's decision in a high-stakes case concerning the former Yang di-Pertuan Agong's refusal to declare a state of emergency five years ago. Syed Iskandar Syed Jaafar Al Mahdzar, a respected figure in Malaysia's legal community, has filed an application at the Federal Court, challenging the Court of Appeal's ruling that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's actions were beyond the purview of judicial review. The case has significant implications for the country's constitutional framework and the role of the judiciary in ensuring that the government remains accountable to the people.

Background & Context

The case in question revolves around a request by the then prime minister to declare a state of emergency in 2017, a move that was refused by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. The refusal sparked a constitutional crisis, with some arguing that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong had overstepped his authority, while others claimed that the move was necessary to protect national security. The dispute ultimately led to a series of court challenges, with Syed Iskandar filing an originating summons in 2020, seeking a declaration that the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1981 was unconstitutional and null and void.

The case has significant implications for the country's constitutional framework, with the High Court ruling in February 2024 that Article 150(8) of the Federal Constitution does not violate the basic structure of the Federal Constitution. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, with Federal Court judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah ruling that matters concerning emergency powers under Article 150 are non-justiciable.

Key Details

According to court documents, Syed Iskandar's application for leave to appeal was filed last Friday through law firm Messrs R.Kengadharan & Co. The application seeks to challenge the Court of Appeal's decision, which dismissed his appeal and upheld the High Court's ruling. Syed Iskandar had named the Malaysian Government and 10 others as defendants in the suit, arguing that the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1981 was unconstitutional and null and void.

Justice Sequerah's grounds of decision, which were released in May 2024, highlighted the sensitive nature of matters concerning emergency powers under Article 150 of the Federal Constitution. He ruled that the courts were ill-equipped to deal with matters involving national security and that it would be inappropriate for a court exercising powers of judicial review to make value judgments of non-judicial nature.

What Experts Say

Experts say that the case has significant implications for the country's constitutional framework and the role of the judiciary in ensuring that the government remains accountable to the people. "The decision by the Court of Appeal to uphold the High Court's ruling has significant implications for the country's constitutional framework," said a prominent constitutional lawyer. "It highlights the limitations of the judiciary in dealing with matters involving national security and the need for caution when exercising powers of judicial review."

Key Takeaways

• The case revolves around a request by the then prime minister to declare a state of emergency in 2017, a move that was refused by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
• The dispute led to a series of court challenges, with Syed Iskandar filing an originating summons in 2020, seeking a declaration that the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1981 was unconstitutional and null and void.
• The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's ruling, ruling that Article 150(8) of the Federal Constitution does not violate the basic structure of the Federal Constitution.
• The case has significant implications for the country's constitutional framework and the role of the judiciary in ensuring that the government remains accountable to the people.

What This Means For You

The case has significant implications for the country's constitutional framework and the role of the judiciary in ensuring that the government remains accountable to the people. It highlights the limitations of the judiciary in dealing with matters involving national security and the need for caution when exercising powers of judicial review. As a citizen, it is essential to remain vigilant and engaged in the democratic process, ensuring that the government remains accountable to the people and that the judiciary plays its role in upholding the rule of law.

The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for the country's constitutional framework and the role of the judiciary in ensuring that the government remains accountable to the people. It is essential that citizens remain informed and engaged in the democratic process, ensuring that the government remains accountable to the people and that the judiciary plays its role in upholding the rule of law.