July 16 hearing on lawyer's bid to challenge JAC's constitutionality

Free Malaysia Today

20 hours ago

The KL High Court has to determine whether the questions posed crossed the threshold of Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 for it to send the case to the apex court, which is the 'guardian of the Federal Constitution'.
KUALA LUMPUR : The High Court will hear on July 16 a lawyer's application to refer several legal questions to the Federal Court regarding the constitutionality of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) and its authority to propose candidates for judicial appointments.
Counsel Daniel Annamalai, who is appearing for Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan Syed Ibrahim, said the court notified the parties about the matter via e-mail last week.
That date was fixed in May by Justice Amarjeet Singh to hear Syed Amir's originating summons on the same subject matter.
Syed Amir withdrew his stay application to suspend JAC activities and instead filed 16 questions of law on June 25 for the determination of the Federal Court.
Amarjeet has to now determine whether the questions crossed the threshold of Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 for him to send the case to the apex court, which is the 'guardian of the Federal Constitution'.
Syed Amir has named the government and JAC as defendants.
Annamalai said the Bar Council would remain as an intervener in the latest application.
Syed Amir is seeking a ruling on whether the JAC Act 2009 contravenes the constitution and is therefore unconstitutional, and whether judicial appointments made under the Act are rendered void as a result.
He also questions whether the establishment of the JAC – without an express constitutional amendment and without consultation with the Conference of Rulers as required under Article 38(4) – invalidates the Act.
In the originating summons filed in early April, Syed Amir argues that the powers vested in the nine-member JAC violate the doctrine of separation of powers and the basic structure of the constitution.
He is seeking a mandamus order to compel the prime minister and the government to strictly adhere to the judicial appointment process prescribed under Article 122B of the Federal Constitution.
He further claims that the JAC Act is inconsistent with Article 4, which declares the written constitution as the supreme law of the land.
Under the JAC Act, the commission is tasked with proposing nominees for judicial appointments to the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court.
It also recommends candidates for the positions of chief justice, the president of the Court of Appeal, the chief judge of Malaya, and the chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak when vacancies arise.
Syed Amir asserts that the questions were neither academic nor hypothetical but directly affect the validity of all judicial appointments made in Malaysia since 2009.
He also maintains that Article 122B of the Federal Constitution grants the prime minister absolute discretion to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on judicial appointments.