The Federal Court will on March 7 hear an application by Al-Ma'unah leader Mohd Amin Mohd Razali against the use of a "draconian" security law in his prosecution for treason.

Mohd Amin is appealing against a High Court decision that the prosecution was valid under the 1975 Essential Security Cases (Amendment) Regulations (Escar).

The Federal Court registry confirmed the date today.

Mohd Amin and 28 others are charged for waging war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (the king), and prosecution is being done under Escar and not the commonly used Criminal Procedure Code.

They are alleged to have committed the offence between June and July 6 at Pos 2, Km 19, Kuala Rui, Jalanraya Timur-Barat, Grik; Batalion 304, Infantri (AW), Kem Grik, Grik; and in Bukit Jenalik, Sauk, all in Perak.

The Al Ma'unah members are alleged to have carried an arms heist from two military camps by duping the soldiers at the camps that they were there to conduct an arms inspection in the early hours of July 2. They had then holed up at Bukit Jenalik until their surrender on July 6.

Objection dismissed

On Oct 3, justice Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin ruled that Mohd Amin and the rest could be tried under Escar, dismissing a preliminary objection raised by Mohd Amin's counsel Karpal Singh.

Karpal, who described Escar as a draconian law, said it was invalid and the trial should be halted immediately.

Karpal said that Escar was invalid on two grounds: firstly, it gives a right of appeal only to the Supreme Court, which does not exist now; and secondly, the regulations were enacted under an Act passed by reason of the proclamation of emergency in 1969, and that proclamation itself is invalid.

Zulkefli said in his ruling that under Escar all defendants do have a right of appeal to the Federal Court because for all intents and purposes the Supreme Court is the same as the Federal Court.

"It is my view that the amendments made to the Federal Constitution is nothing more than the change of names of the courts. It does not alter or abolish the status of the Federal Court and it remains the highest court in the country," said Zulkefli.

He said all reference to the Supreme Court in Escar could be construed as reference to the Federal Court.

Invalid proclamation

On the second ground of Karpal's preliminary objection, Zulkefli said the Agong has the right to proclaim a state of emergency on his own without taking the advice of the cabinet.

He said the proclamation of emergency in 1969 was within the royal prerogative of the Agong, in which case he could act personally.

Karpal had submitted that the proclamation of emergency dated May 15, 1969 was null and void, as such the Emergency (Essential Powers) Act 1979 which created Escar too was invalid, making the regulations invalid too.

Karpal said the Federal Constitution provides for the Agong to act on advice of the cabinet to proclaim an emergency, but at that time, the Dewan Rakyat had been dissolved to enable elections to be held on May 10, 1969, adding that even assuming the Agong acted on the advice of a caretaker government, the proclamation would still be invalid as caretaker government could only carry day-to-day administration.

Of the 29 Al-Ma'unah members, 10 have been sentenced to 10 years' jail each after they had pleaded guilty to an alternative charge of recruiting men and collecting arms to prepare to wage war.

Prosecution ended its case on Feb 5 after 44 days of trial and 61 witnesses. The High Court will continue to hear submissions of Feb 21.