Latest news with #constitutionality
Free Malaysia Today
4 days ago
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Court to hear Bar's bid for JAC minutes in September
Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan Syed Ibrahim (left) with his lawyers Simrenjit Singh and Daniel Annamalai (right) outside the High Court after today's proceedings. KUALA LUMPUR : The High Court has agreed to hear an application by the Malaysian Bar seeking the disclosure of the minutes of every meeting held by the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) since January 2023. The application is tied to an ongoing suit brought by lawyer Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan Syed Ibrahim in which the Bar appears as an intervener. In his suit, Syed Amir is challenging the constitutionality of the JAC Act 2009. At case management today, Justice Amarjeet Singh gave Syed Amir and the defendants – the government and the JAC – until July 30 to file their affidavits in reply. The judge also set Aug 30 as the deadline for all parties to tender their written submissions. The Bar's application, filed last week, contends that the JAC minutes must be sighted to resolve factual disputes raised in Syed Amir's amended originating summons. In an affidavit filed in support of the Bar's application, its secretary, Murshidah Mustafa, said the documents would assist the court in determining whether the case warrants referral to the Federal Court. Earlier, Syed Amir's counsel, Simrenjit Singh, urged Amarjeet to hear his client's reference application to the Federal Court first. 'The JAC members have an overreaching influence on the executive, which is not envisaged by the Federal Constitution,' said Simrenjit, who was assisted by Daniel Annamalai. That position was supported by senior federal counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambaly, appearing for the defendants. Counsel Christopher Leong, appearing for the Bar, however, called for the court to dispose of the discovery application first, pointing out that Syed Amir had in his affidavit alleged executive interference in the exercise by the JAC of its functions. 'Our application will become academic should the court allow the plaintiff's reference application,' said Leong, who appeared with B Anand Raj and Abdul Rashid Ismail. Lawyer Ramkarpal Singh, acting for Bersih – granted amicus curiae status in the proceedings – said the Bar's application should take precedence. 'The JAC Act is not unconstitutional and the plaintiff's 16 legal questions for reference are too general,' the MP and former deputy law minister said. Syed Amir filed his reference application on June 25. He is seeking a ruling as to whether the JAC Act 2009 contravenes the constitution, and whether judicial appointments made under the Act are rendered void as a result. His originating summons, filed in April, challenges the constitutionality of the JAC Act 2009, its alignment with the Federal Constitution, and the legitimacy of all judicial appointments made under its purview. He argues that the Act impinges on the supremacy of the constitution, as provided by Article 4, and that it is invalid as it violates Article 38(4), having been passed without the consent of the Conference of Rulers. Syed Amir further claims that the commission's powers breach the doctrine of separation of powers and the constitution's basic structure. He is seeking a mandamus order to compel strict adherence to Article 122B of the constitution, arguing that the prime minister has absolute discretion in advising the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on judicial appointments. The JAC is responsible for nominating judges to the superior courts and recommending candidates for top judicial roles, including chief justice and chief judges for Malaya and Sabah & Sarawak. Syed Amir contends that his legal questions are neither academic nor hypothetical, and that the outcome of the suit may affect all judicial appointments made since 2009.
Free Malaysia Today
4 days ago
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
Law prohibiting appeals from dismissal of interlocutory rulings upheld
The Federal Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal brought by Ong Saw Yong, Chew Khor Teng and Phang Tee Yong, and ordered them to pay the government RM30,000 in costs. PUTRAJAYA : The Federal Court has denied three businessmen the opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of two legal provisions restricting appeals from interlocutory decisions. An interlocutory decision is a ruling issued by a court while a suit is ongoing, which does not finally dispose of the case. In 2022, the trio – Ong Saw Yong, Chew Khor Teng and Phang Tee Yong – filed a lawsuit in the High Court seeking to challenge the validity of amendments to Sections 28 and 68 of the Court of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA), which came into force earlier that year. Following the amendment, Section 28 bars appeals to the High Court from lower court decisions that dismiss applications for summary judgment, striking out of suits or pleadings, or setting aside default judgments. Section 68 prohibits similar appeals from the High Court to the Court of Appeal. Ong, Chew and Phang were defendants in a civil action brought by Pasir Bogak Sdn Bhd in 2021 to recover approximately RM14.5 million from a land sale. Their application to have the suit struck out was dismissed by the High Court in 2022, from which they had no right of appeal. They then brought the present lawsuit against the government, claiming that the amendments to Section 28 and 68 of the CJA violated their constitutional right to freely express their disagreement with a court's decision. The suit was dismissed by the High Court. The trio also failed in their appeal to the Court of Appeal. Today, a three-member bench led by Justice Nordin Hassan held that their application for leave to appeal that decision had no merit. The court also ordered that they pay RM30,000 in costs to the government. Also on the bench hearing the appeal were Justices Abu Jais Bakar and Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera. Lawyer T Manoharan appeared for Ong, Chew and Phang while senior federal counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambaly appeared for the government. The land sale suit hearing is scheduled to begin on April 6 next year.
Irish Times
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Legal challenge to ‘super junior' ministers seeks judges' intervention in inner workings of Government, AG tells court
A Sinn Féin TD's High Court action challenging the constitutionality of super junior minister appointments seeks the judiciary's 'unprecedented' intervention in the inner workings of the Government's executive branch, the Attorney General has said. Rossa Fanning made the argument in presenting the State's defence to Pa Daly's case, which opened before a three-judge divisional court on Monday. Mr Fanning said the court should resist the Kerry TD's attempt to have the judiciary involve itself in a 'political contest being played as an away fixture down at the Four Courts'. Mr Daly's case claims the appointment of super-junior ministers is 'completely anti-democratic', and is a breach of various provisions of Bunreacht na hÉireann. READ MORE 'Ministers of State attending Cabinet', or super junior ministers, are appointed by the Government on the nomination of the Taoiseach. They participate at Government meetings but do not vote. Senior government ministers are appointed by the President of Ireland on the advice of the Taoiseach and with the prior approval of Dáil Éireann. At present, there are four super-junior ministers attending Cabinet: Fianna Fáil's Mary Butler, Hildegarde Naughton of Fine Gael, and Noel Grealish and Seán Canney of the Regional Independent Group. They are not parties to the case. Opening Mr Daly's case on Monday, Feichín McDonagh SC said super junior ministers meet and act as a 'collective authority' with other senior government members, in breach of the constitution. Counsel opened to the court Article 28 of the Constitution, which limits the number of government members to 15, including the Taoiseach, and provides that they meet and act as a collective authority. Under the current scenario, there are 'extra individuals' – super junior ministers – who are present in the Cabinet room taking a full role in the formulation of Government policy, Mr McDonagh said. Every decision taken by the Government with these extra individuals in attendance has been formulated in breach of Article 28 of the Constitution, Mr McDonagh said. He said their case is not challenging a particular Government decision based on the legal points raised – but some other litigant could, which is a danger and possible problem, Mr McDonagh said. Their case is trying to ensure the Government complies with the Constitution, Mr McDonagh said . Counsel said the Attorney General attends Cabinet meetings to provide legal advice, and the secretary general takes meeting minutes, but they do not act collectively with the members of Government. Rossa Fanning, representing the State respondents in the case, said the court should resist Mr Daly's case to conscript the judiciary to involve itself in a 'political contest being played as an away fixture down at the Four Courts'. Mr Fanning said the case's key question was whether the Constitution forbids the regular attendance by ministers of state at Government meetings, whilst simultaneously allowing the attendance of the secretary general, attorney general, and limited attendance of other ministers. 'Plainly, the answer to that question is the Constitution does nothing of the kind,' he said. Mr Fanning said their case is because there is no Constitutional regulation of who attends Cabinet meetings, who attends is matter exclusively for the Government itself. Mr Fanning submitted this even if the court disagrees with this, for Mr Daly's case to succeed, he must prove the Government's 'clear disregard' of the Constitution. Mr Fanning said the practice of ministers of state attending Cabinet meetings has been ratified and recognised multiple times by members of the Oireachtas. This arises from legislation passed, initially in 2001, providing for allowances to be paid to those ministers. Earlier, Mr McDonagh said this allowance 'is neither here nor there' when addressing the legal issues raised by their case. Mr Fanning submitted that Cabinet meetings are only one element of Government decision-making, and cannot be looked at artificially in isolation of the other parts of that process. He noted the role of Cabinet Committees in the process, and other people and organisations that can influence a decision. The idea that ministers of state must be hermetically sealed away from the formation of policy is completely unreal, he said. Mr Fanning said Mr McDonagh was advancing an 'unprecedented' argument, by positing that the attendance of additional people at a Cabinet meeting invalidates a consensus decision of the 15 senior government ministers. Mr Fanning said Mr Daly's side were seeking to reverse engineer an interpretation of the Constitution to suit their case. The case continues, and expected to run until Wednesday at the latest. Mr Daly, Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald and Sinn Féin finance spokesman Pearse Doherty were present in court on Monday morning. A similar case, brought by People Before Profit-Solidarity TD Paul Murphy , will open following the conclusion of Mr Daly's case.
Free Malaysia Today
29-05-2025
- General
- Free Malaysia Today
PN urges AG to intervene in Anwar's reference application
PN's Takiyuddin Hassan said the attorney-general has a duty to scrutinise the legality and constitutionality of the prime minister's application and provide formal advice on the matter accordingly. PETALING JAYA : Perikatan Nasional has urged the attorney-general to intervene in an application by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim to refer eight questions of law to the Federal Court, including whether he has immunity from a civil suit scheduled for trial next month. Opposition chief whip Takiyuddin Hassan said the AG, as the government's legal adviser entrusted with upholding the Federal Constitution, must intervene in the matter. Takiyuddin, who is a lawyer, suggested that the AG join the proceedings as an intervenor or appear as amicus curiae (friend of the court). He said the AG has a duty to scrutinise the legality and constitutionality of the prime minister's application and provide formal advice on the matter accordingly. Takiyuddin also said the AG held the duty to prevent the establishment of a 'dangerous' judicial precedent that may undermine the principle of accountability for political leaders. ADVERTISEMENT VIDCRUNCH Next Stay Playback speed 1x Normal Quality Auto Back 360p 240p 144p Auto Back 0.25x 0.5x 1x Normal 1.5x 2x / Skip Ads by Lawyer Rafique Rashid Ali, who appeared for former research assistant Yusoff Rawther, said yesterday that Justice Roz Mawar Rozain has fixed June 3 for parties to make oral submissions for the application. The judge must first determine whether the legal questions posed cross the threshold for them to be referred to the Federal Court. Anwar wants the apex court to rule whether Articles 39, 40 and 43 of the Federal Constitution grant him qualified immunity from a suit filed by Yusoff four years ago. The other questions posed include the High Court's obligation to hold a 'threshold inquiry' to determine whether the suit constitutes an abuse of process or a threat to public interest, and if so, whether it must be stayed or dismissed 'to preserve constitutional governance'. The suit relates to events which allegedly took place before Anwar took office on Nov 24, 2022. Yusoff, a grandson of the late Penang consumer advocate SM Mohamed Idris, filed the suit against Anwar in 2021, claiming that he was assaulted at the PKR president's home in Segambut in October 2018. He is seeking general, special, aggravated and exemplary damages, as well as interest, costs and other relief deemed fit by the court. Anwar has denied the claim and filed a countersuit.
BreakingNews.ie
28-05-2025
- General
- BreakingNews.ie
High Court challenges to 'super junior' ministers attending Cabinet set for July
Hearings into separate High Court actions brought by Kerry TD Pa Daly and People Before Profit-Solidarity's Paul Murphy challenging the constitutionality of "super junior" ministers will be heard consecutively in early July. A three-judge divisional court will hear the actions, starting on July 7th with Mr Daly's case, High Court president Mr Justice David Barniville said during a case management hearing on Wednesday. Advertisement Mr Murphy's case will commence immediately after the expected conclusion of Sinn Féin TD Mr Daly's case on July 9th, the president said. Super junior ministers are appointed by the Government on the nomination of the Taoiseach. They participate at government meetings but do not vote. Mr Daly's judicial review proceedings point to article 28 of Bunreacht na hÉireann, which limits the number of government members to 15th, including the Taoiseach. He claims that in facilitating more non-Government Ministers of State at Cabinet, the Government is 'acting contrary' to the 15-person limit and the 'expressed wish of the people of Ireland'. Advertisement Mr Murphy is seeking an injunction restraining super junior ministers from attending Cabinet meetings. His case also points to the 15-person limit outlined in article 28 of the Constitution. Both TDs are suing the Taoiseach, the Government, Ireland and the Attorney General. The State parties are fully defending the cases. On Wednesday, Attorney General Rossa Fanning reiterated his side's assertion that Mr Murphy's case raises no legal issue that won't be addressed in Mr Daly's case. He said Mr Murphy's side had not responded to their questions asking what legal question is raised by their case that is not raised in Mr Daly's case. Advertisement Mr Fanning acknowledged that he couldn't stop Mr Murphy's case from getting on, but asked the court to exercise its discretion, and to not fix the Dublin South-West TD's case for after Mr Daly's case. Ireland Super junior ministers gift €16,000 pay rise back... Read More John Rogers SC, appearing with Paul Gunning and Molly Higgins for Mr Murphy, said that their case would add 'a real dimension' to the court's appraisal and understanding of the Government's practice of including super junior ministers at Cabinet meetings. Mr Murphy, former TD and minister of State Shane Ross and historian Diarmuid Ferriter are expected to give evidence for Mr Murphy's side. Mr Justice Barniville, sitting with Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan and Mr Justice Conleth Bradley, said the court was persuaded that it was appropriate for Mr Murphy's case to be heard immediately after Mr Daly's. Mr Justice Barniville said that running the case consecutively would be the best use of resources, including court time.
