The Federal Court today ruled that jailed opposition figure Anwar Ibrahim need not be present for his challenge against three laws that abrogate the mandatory requirement for bills to be assented by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

Chief Justice Md Raus Sharif, who led the bench in dismissing the ex-parte application by lawyer Latheefa Koya for the PKR de facto leader, said it is not a necessity for Anwar to be present in the application for leave.

"Furthermore, the hearing for leave has been fixed before a single judge (in the Federal Court)," he said.

Justice Raus sat with Chief Judge of Malaya Ahmad Ma'arop and Federal Court judge Justice Azahar Mohamed.

The politician is serving five years in jail for sodomy and is expected to be released on June 8.

The hearing for leave to challenge the three laws has been fixed on April 23.

It was reported that on Jan 2, Anwar filed the challenge, naming the Malaysian government as the sole respondent.

He filed the notice of motion at the Federal Court, seeking to challenge three laws that abrogate the mandatory requirement for bills to be assented to by the king. 

Anwar is seeking to have Section 12 of the Constitutional Act 1983 (Amendment), Section 2 of the Constitutional Act 1984 (Amendment) and Section 8 of the Constitutional Act Amendment 1994 be declared unconstitutional for affecting the basic structure of the Federal Constitution.

Anwar also wants a declaration that the three laws are ultra vires (beyond the powers) of Article 4(1) of the Federal Constitution, given that Parliament arguably has no right to pass such amendments.

Article 4(1) of the Federal Constitution emphasises the supremacy of the constitution, and that any law passed after Merdeka Day that is inconsistent with the constitution will be rendered void.

Besides this, he is also challenging the National Security Council Act (NSC) 2016, which was passed without royal assent.

Anwar had filed a separate challenge against the NSC Act, where the apex court had already last March, granted leave for it to be challenged on two questions of law.

The questions are:

  • Whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to hear and determine an action seeking a declaration that Section 12 of the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1983, Section 2 of the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1984 and Section 8 of the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1994 are unconstitutional having regard to decisions in the Roman Archbishop vs Home Minister, the Negeri Sembilan state government vs Muhammad Juzaili (the LGBT case), Mark Koding vs Public prosecutor, Yeoh Tat Thong vs Government' and Ah Thian vs Government.
     
  • Whether the challenge on the constitutionality of an Act of Parliament on the ground that it violates the basic structure doctrine is one that requires being brought to the Federal Court pursuant to Articles 4(3), 4(4) and Article 128 of the Federal Constitution.