Court fixes Sept 3 for decision on constitutionality of one-day Parliament sitting
The High Court of Kuala Lumpur today fixed Sept 3 to deliver its ruling on a bid to challenge the constitutionality of the one-day Parliament sitting on May 18 (above).
Judge Ahmad Kamal Mohd Shahid set the date after hearing submissions from the plaintiffs and the defence.
The High Court of Kuala Lumpur today fixed Sept 3 to deliver its ruling on a bid to challenge the constitutionality of the one-day Parliament sitting on May 18 (above).
Judge Ahmad Kamal Mohd Shahid set the date after hearing submissions from the plaintiffs and the defence.
The suit was initiated by lawyer R Kengadharan and social activist D Arumugam.
It named Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin as well as the previous Dewan Rakyat speaker Mohamad Ariff Mohd Yusoff as first and second defendants respectively.
The two plaintiffs, among others, sought a declaration that the single-day Parliament sitting which only heard the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's address was not in accordance with the Federal Constitution and thus null and void.
During submissions, the plaintiffs' lead counsel Bastian Vendargon argued that without any debates, the May 18 sitting had unconstitutionally and unlawfully curtailed Parliament's functions to hold the executive accountable.
Vendargon also argued that the courts had the power to rule on parliamentary matters when dealing with constitutionality.
He argued further that the Covid-19 pandemic was not an acceptable reason to cut Parliament's session short and that conversely, it actually necessitated a sitting with debates so that necessary legislation could be passed.
Senior federal counsel Suzana Atan, however, said the precedent set by the Federal Court was that the courts could only decide on matters for which Parliament did not have explicit rules or regulations.
In the case of proroguing Parliament from March 9 to May 18, this was allowed under Standing Orders 11(2) which allowed the House leader, that is the prime minister, to vary the dates of the sitting.
Meanwhile, Standing Orders 15(2) allowed the government to set the agenda for a sitting, she submitted.
