LETTER | We register our strongest objection to the legal action initiated by P Waythamoorthy seeking to disqualify Anwar Ibrahim as Tambun MP and as the prime minister.
This reckless litigation is not only legally untenable but also a gross abuse of judicial process. It undermines the Federal Constitution, the royal prerogative of pardon, and the democratic mandate of the people.
1. Royal pardon is final and binding
Anwar received a full and unconditional royal pardon in 2018. Constitutionally, such a pardon has the effect of erasing all legal disqualifications. By challenging this, the plaintiff has shown blatant disrespect to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s prerogative powers under Article 42 of the Federal Constitution.
2. No AG’s consent
This suit purports to question matters of public right without obtaining the fiat (consent) of the attorney-general. Filing such an action without the AG’s sanction is procedurally defective and could expose the plaintiff to penal consequences for frivolous and vexatious litigation.
3. Time-barred and incompetent
Any challenge to the validity of an MP’s election must be filed within 21 days under Article 118 of the Federal Constitution and Section 38 of the Election Offences Act 1954. Waytha’s filing, more than two years after the Tambun election, is barred by law and amounts to a deliberate abuse of court process.
4. Lack of locus standi
The plaintiff has no standing to maintain this suit. He is neither a voter of Tambun nor a person directly affected. Malaysian jurisprudence, particularly Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang [1988] 2 MLJ 12, makes it clear that public interest litigation without locus standi or AG’s fiat is not permitted.
5. Penal consequences for misuse of process
Waytha’s conduct may warrant sanctions under the law:
Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 – permits striking out of actions that are scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious, with costs on an indemnity basis.
Section 35, Legal Profession Act 1976 – as a lawyer, knowingly filing a baseless action could amount to professional misconduct.
Contempt of court – Persisting in actions that scandalise the royal prerogative of pardon or abuse judicial process may amount to contempt, which carries imprisonment or fines.
Penal Code, Section 177 – knowingly furnishing false information to a public servant in judicial proceedings may attract criminal liability.
Such punitive measures exist to protect the dignity of the courts and to deter individuals from weaponising the judiciary for political theatrics.
6. Insult to democracy and monarchy
This suit disrespects the will of the electorate in Tambun, the authority of Parliament, and the solemn decision of His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in appointing the prime minister. To misuse the courts in this manner is not only irresponsible but borders on an attempt to destabilise the constitutional order.
This legal charade must be struck down swiftly. The courts should not only dismiss the action but also consider penal sanctions to send a clear message that our judiciary cannot be misused for baseless political stunts.
The Federal Constitution is supreme, not a means for personal ambition nor legal mischief.
SELVAM SHANMUGAM is an advocate and solicitor at the High Court of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.