Panellists at a forum on the Federal Constitution last night were at odds on whether the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is empowered to sack the prime minister.

This is after Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak said last week he was informed that the Agong cannot be involved in the Citizens' Declaration – which calls for Najib's removal from office – as it is unconstitutional.

But the Agong does in fact have the power to sack a sitting prime minister, according to lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla.

“For me the answer is in the constitution, and God-willing, I will be frank on where in the constitution it can be found,” he told the forum in Shah Alam last night.

Haniff (photo) explained that in the main text of the Federal Constitution, the Agong’s powers to appoint the prime minister comes under Article 40(2)(a). The text is silent on the Agong’s powers in removing the prime minister from office.

However, under Section 29 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance 1948, it is stipulated that the power to appoint should be interpreted, “as including a power to dismiss or suspend any person appointed and to appoint another person temporarily in the place of any person so suspended or in place of any sick or absent holder of such office or place.”

The provision also appears under the 11th Schedule of the Federal Constitution, which makes the law valid for interpreting the Federal Constitution, by virtue of the constitution’s Article 160(1).

“So the answer is there, we just don’t look at it. When we don’t look at it, we don’t know...

“So back to the statement made by the prime minister recently saying that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong decreed that he supposedly does not have the power.

“If my views are correct and the constitution is printed correctly, it means that the prime minister is wrong,” he said.

Haniff is also a lawyer for the former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who had an audience with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong when submitted the Citizen’s Declaration to His Majesty on Sept 16.

The declaration was supposedly signed by 1.3 million Malaysians and seeks Najib's removal and also calls for institutional reforms.

Meanwhile, fellow panellist Adnan Seman (photo) questioned if it was proper for the Agong to sack the prime minister.

The lawyer pointed out that the prime minister enjoys the support of the majority in Parliament, and there would be consequences if he is abruptly removed.

“If we agree that, ‘Yes, the Agong can remove the prime minister at any time’, I believe it would cause instability in a country.

“Today you may not agree with Najib, but suppose that one day Pakatan Harapan wins the election and becomes the government,” he told the forum.

The lawyer added that Haniff’s interpretation of the Federal Constitution was merely his own, and ultimately, it would be for the court to decide whether it is correct.

As for the Agong, Adnan said it is unlikely that His Majesty would be interpreting the constitution on his own.

It was more likely that the Agong would be relying on the advice of the attorney-general, who in turn is appointed by His Majesty on advice of the prime minister, he said.

“So it goes back to politics, back to elections. Elections determine who becomes the government and – for me – it is elections that determine who becomes the prime minister,” Adnan said.

Tackling the root cause

Responding to a question from the moderator on whether the constitution should be amended so that the Agong can sack the prime minister, law lecturer Abdul Aziz Bari said this merely amounted to running away from the root cause of the problem.

Aziz said the problem is lack of integrity in Malaysia’s political culture, with the Dewan Rakyat speaker blocking attempts for a no-confidence vote, and the prime minister refusing to resign despite numerous allegations against him.

In contrast, in the United Kingdom, the democratic institutions run smoothly, even without a written constitution, he said.

In addition, since no coalition has the two-thirds majority in Parliament needed to amend the constitution, the issue of amending it does not arise, he said.