Kudos to Federal Court for recent judgment

THE members of G25 wholeheartedly applaud the recent courageous and innovative judgment of the Federal Court in the case of Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat (and another appeal) that restores the judicial power of the Judiciary and affirms the doctrine of the Separation of Powers. In so ruling, the Federal Court has propounded two important principles of constitutional law namely, (1) that the independence of the Judiciary and the doctrine of the Separation of Powers are basic features of the Federal Constitution; and (2) that Parliament has no power to amend the Federal Constitution with the view to remove these two basic features.

Our heartiest congratulations to the members of the panel for their judicial activism: Justice Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin (Chief Judge Malaya), Justice Tan Sri Hasan Lah (Federal Court Judge), Justice Tan Sri Zainun Ali (Federal Court Judge), Justice Tan Sri Abu Samah Nordin (Federal Court Judge), and Justice Tan Sri Zaharah Ibrahim (Federal Court Judge).

Justice Zainun Ali delivered the judgment of the Federal Court.

Going back in history, in 1988 the Executive, dissatisfied with several decisions of the Supreme Court (as the Federal Court was then called) that did not favour the Government, caused Parliament to amend Article 121 of the Federal Constitution purportedly to remove the judicial power of the Judiciary. As amended, Article 121 provided that the High Courts shall only have such powers as conferred upon the Courts by federal law. In 2008, the decision of the Federal Court in the case of Public Prosecutor v Kok Wan Kuah (2008) 1 MLJ 1 confirmed what was feared: that the effect of the amendment to Article 121 was to limit the judicial power of the Judiciary only to the extent as provided for by Parliament.

However, on April 20, 2017, the Federal Court delivered a landmark decision in Semenyih Jaya, wherein the Federal Court departed from the position that it had taken in Public Prosecutor v Kok Wan Wah. The appellants in the two appeals in Semenyih Jaya challenged the constitutionality of section 40D of the Land Acquisition Act 1961 on the ground that the provision (section 40D) vested judicial power with the assessors (who sit with the Judge in hearing the land reference case) and therefore violated Article 121 of the Federal Constitution. Section 40D of the Land Acquisition Act provided for a conclusive determination of compensation (for the landowner) by the assessors rather than by the judge with whom the assessors sit. The 1988 constitutional amendment became the central issue of the appeals before the Federal Court. Before the Court, the Malaysian Bar advanced the argument that the 1988 constitutional amendment was unconstitutional on the ground that it violated two basic features of the Federal Constitution, namely the doctrine of Separation of Powers and the independence of the Judiciary.

With this decision in Semenyih Jaya, the emasculation of the Judiciary by the notorious 1988 constitutional amendment has now been removed. The Judiciary has to its credit corrected a horrible wrong that had been done to it.


Kuala Lumpur

Article type: metered
User Type: anonymous web
User Status:
Campaign ID: 46
Cxense type: free
User access status: 3
Join our Telegram channel to get our Evening Alerts and breaking news highlights

Opinion , Letters; Judiciary: G25


Next In Letters

What price would you pay for nature’s services?
Are nano spray gun sanitising liquids safe?
Compassion not punishment
No substitute for joy, experience of physical classes
Penalty for corruption should be more severe
Tap on folklore to help build the nation
Don’t rob Peter to pay Paul
No foreseeable end to plastic pollution
eTrade continues to help participating SMEs overcome pandemic woes
Tough road to citizenship

Stories You'll Enjoy