Datuk Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan is pictured at the Kuala Lumpur High Court April 27, 2021. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa
KUALA LUMPUR, June 23 — The High Court has today dismissed a bid by Datuk Khairuddin Abu Hassan to refer questions of law directly to the Federal Court on his suit questioning Tan Sri Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin’s legitimacy in advising the King to proclaim an Emergency.
Khairuddin’s lawyer Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali confirmed the matter after court proceedings, including the filing of oral and written submissions with the presence of all parties, were conducted in chambers at noon which lasted about 45 minutes.
High Court judge Datuk Noorin Badaruddin presided over the hearing while senior federal counsels Suzana Atan and S. Narkunavathy appeared for the government.
“The plaintiff’s application was dismissed by the High Court with no order as to costs. No reasons (for dismissal) during delivery of oral decision,” he told Malay Mail when contacted here.
Separately, Muhammad Rafique also confirmed that the court will proceed to hear the government’s bid to strike out the entirety of Khairuddin’s civil suit on August 24.
Khairuddin filed the suit on January 18 shortly after the Emergency proclamation, asking the High Court to refer four legal and constitutional issues over the Emergency proclamation he posed to the Federal Court for a final determination.
In his originating summons, Khairuddin posed legal questions to be answered by the courts on whether the prime minister, who he claimed had lost his majority support in the Dewan Rakyat, could still advise Yang di-Pertuan Agong Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri’ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah to proclaim an Emergency in the country.
One of the legal questions also included whether the decision of the Cabinet chaired by a prime minister who had lost the confidence of the majority of Members of Parliament to recommend to the King for an Emergency proclamation could be deemed invalid and unconstitutional.
In their written submission filed earlier today, senior federal counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant had argued that all courts have the power to interpret the Constitution and to determine constitutional issues which the High Court ought to generally determine such issues at first instance.
They reiterated that there was nothing in Khairuddin’s ground (reference to the Federal Court) which fell beyond the jurisdiction and competence of the High Court.
“The four questions are the very same questions which the plaintiff has posed to be determined by this High Court,” the submission reads.
They also said the question as to whether Muhyiddin or his Cabinet have ceased to command the confidence of the majority of Dewan Rakyat members has not been determined in any forum or by any authority.
“This assumption is dubious and has not been established,” they said.
On February 17, Muhyiddin and the Government of Malaysia filed the application to strike out the suit on grounds that it was frivolous, trivial, troublesome and an abuse of the court process.
Solicitor-General Datuk Abdul Razak Musa, in a supporting affidavit filed with the application, said there was no evidence in Khairuddin’s application as the plaintiff, or in his supporting affidavit, that supported his claim that Muhyiddin had lost the confidence of the majority members of the Dewan Rakyat.
He said the plaintiff had also failed to identify the public and private rights or legal interests that had been denied or personal losses suffered following the first defendant’s advice to the King, and the issue or the controversy between the plaintiff and the defendants that required a decision by the court.