According to media reports, Federal Minister YB Nga KorMing stated that if Datuk Seri Najib were released “without serving a punishment commensurate with the offence”, it would mean that the integrity of the judiciary had been compromised and that the rule of law, as embodied in the Rukun Negara, was no longer being respected. He further declared that he would resign from the Cabinet should such a situation occur.

As an Advocate and Solicitor, YB Nga ought to know that Datuk Seri Najib has exhausted the judicial process. The courts have heard the case, convicted him, imposed sentence, and all appeals have been exhausted. The judiciary has fully discharged its constitutional responsibility. Its integrity is neither questioned nor diminished merely because a separate constitutional mechanism may subsequently be invoked.

YB Nga Kor Ming's statement appears to prejudge a possible future exercise of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's constitutional power to grant a pardon under Article 42 of the Federal Constitution. The Constitution entrusts that judgment to His Majesty—not to members of the Cabinet. It is therefore wholly inappropriate for a Cabinet Minister to suggest, in advance, that the lawful exercise of that constitutional power would somehow compromise the integrity of the judiciary or undermine the rule of law. Such a statement not only pre-empts a constitutional process that may never arise, but also risks creating the perception that His Majesty's future exercise of a constitutionally vested power would itself be inconsistent with judicial integrity.

Even more troubling, this statement comes from a serving Cabinet Minister who frequently invokes the Rukun Negara. The second principle of the Rukun Negara is “Kesetiaankepada Raja dan Negara.” Loyalty to the King is not merely ceremonial—it requires respect for every constitutional power vested in His Majesty, including His Majesty's constitutional power of pardon. One cannot profess fidelity to the rule of law while simultaneously casting doubt upon another constitutional institution exercising powers expressly conferred by the very same Constitution.

YB Nga’s statement therefore raises a fundamental constitutional question. Is he simply mistaken about the constitutional position, or is he deliberately attempting, through the threat of his resignation, to discourage or influence the future exercise of His Majesty’s constitutional powers under the guise of defending judicial integrity?

Such a proposition is not only legally flawed but constitutionally dangerous. It places unnecessary political pressure on the future exercise of one of His Majesty’s express constitutional powers and risks undermining public confidence in the constitutional role of the Yang di-PertuanAgong.

YB Nga should therefore withdraw his remarks and offer an unequivocal apology to the Yang Dipertuan Agong.

In a constitutional monarchy governed by the rule of law, respect for the Constitution necessarily includes respect for the constitutional wisdom and prerogatives of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy

President

Malaysian Advancement Party

DARIPADA REFORMASI KE REPRESI? Pentadbiran Madani dan Gelinciran Berbahaya Ke Arah Pemerintahan Diktator

Injunksi terbaru terhadap blogger Wan Muhammad Azri merupakan peringatanyang amat membimbangkan bahawa Malaysia berisiko tergelincir ke arahpemerintahan autoritarian, di mana institusi negara digunakan untuk mengekangdan membungkam suara yang tidak sehaluan dengan kerajaan.

Aspek yang paling membimbangkan dalam injunksi tersebut ialah laranganyang dilaporkan terhadap Papa Gomo daripada menggunakan mana-mana platform media sosial melalui akaun sedia ada atau akaun yang akandiwujudkan pada masa hadapan.

Ini merupakan satu perkembangan yang luar biasa, amat meresahkan, dan jelasbercanggah dengan hak kebebasan bersuara yang dijamin oleh PerlembagaanPersekutuan.

Melarang seseorang warganegara daripada mengakses media sosial secaraefektif menafikan haknya untuk mengambil bahagian secara bermakna dalamproses demokrasi negara.

Tindakan yang diambil oleh MCMC mempunyai semua ciri suatu usaha yang disengajakan untuk membisukan pengkritik kerajaan dan menekan perbezaanpandangan politik yang sah di bawah alasan penguatkuasaan peraturan.

Jaminan kebebasan bersuara dalam Perlembagaan menjadi tidak bermaknasekiranya rakyat dihalang daripada berkomunikasi melalui platform yang kinimenjadi medium utama masyarakat untuk bertukar pandangan, maklumat dan idea.

Tidak kurang membimbangkan ialah cubaan untuk menghalang penerbitan pada masa hadapan atas alasan bahawa kenyataan tersebut mungkin bersifat fitnah.

Sama ada sesuatu kenyataan itu memfitnah atau tidak adalah persoalan yang hanya boleh diputuskan oleh mahkamah selepas melalui proses perundanganyang sewajarnya dan pendengaran penuh terhadap keterangan yang dikemukakan. Malaysia sudah pun mempunyai undang-undang fitnah yang mantap bagi memberikan remedi kepada mana-mana individu atau institusiyang mendakwa reputasi mereka telah terjejas.

Apa yang menjadikan keadaan ini lebih ironik ialah Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim sendiri selama berdekad-dekad menentang penggunaan kuasa negara yang sedemikian.

Kebebasan bersuara wujud untuk melindungi mereka yang mengkritik kerajaan.

Kerajaan diktator pula berusaha membungkam kritikan.

Penyalahgunaan agensi kerajaan dan proses perundangan sebagai senjata untukmembisukan pengkritik kerajaan merupakan ciri utama rejim autoritarian. Rakyat Malaysia mesti menolak penyalahgunaan kuasa yang terang-terangan inikerana ia mengkhianati semangat Reformasi serta memberi isyarat bahawanegara sedang melangkah ke arah pemerintahan yang semakin autoritarian dan norma baharu yang amat membimbangkan.

The recent injunction against blogger Wan Muhammad Azri is a chilling reminder that Malaysia risks descending into an era of authoritarian governance, where state institutions are deployed to suppress dissenting voices.

 The most disturbing aspect of the injunction is the reported prohibition on Papa Gomo using any social media platforms through existing or future accounts.

 This is an extraordinary and deeply troubling development that violates the fundamental right of expression under the Malaysian Constitution.

 Prohibiting a citizen from accessing social media platforms effectively denies him meaningful participation in the democratic process.

 The actions taken by MCMC bear all the hallmarks of a deliberate attempt to silence critics of the government and suppress lawful political dissent under the guise of regulatory enforcement.

 The constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech becomes meaningless if citizens are prevented from communicating through the very platforms society now uses to exchange ideas and opinions.

 Equally troubling is the attempt to restrain future publications on the basis that they may be defamatory.

 Whether a statement is defamatory is ultimately a matter for judicial determination after due process and a full hearing of the evidence. Malaysia already possesses well-established defamation laws that provide remedies to any person or institution that believes its reputation has been harmed.

 What makes this situation particularly ironic is that Anwar Ibrahim himself spent decades opposing similar exercises of state power.

 Freedom of speech exists to protect those who criticise the government.

A dictatorial government seeks to silence criticism.

 The weaponisation of state agencies and legal processes to silence government critics is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes. Malaysians must reject this blatant abuse of power, which betrays the spirit of Reformasi and signals a dangerous drift towards authoritarian rule and a troubling new normal.

Introduction

2 PERTINENT CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS

How should Malaysians truly respond when the dignity, constitutional position, and institutional sanctity of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the Malay Rulers, and Parliamentary democracy face grave and unprecedented erosion arising from the conduct and actions of one individual — Anwar Ibrahim — in circumstances serious enough to trigger profound national alarm, constitutional caution, and urgent public scrutiny?

This question assumes even greater constitutional gravity when examined against two explosive and unprecedented controversies now before the courts — controversies which, to any reasonable and right-thinking Malaysian, ought to trigger the highest degree of constitutional vigilance, national concern, and institutional caution:

HIS MAJESTY’S POWERS UNDER ARTICLE 130

Ultimately, both constitutional controversies involve questions touching the powers, dignity, and constitutional position of the Yang di-PertuanAgong and the Malay Rulers.

If, years later, the courts eventually conclude that a constitutionally disqualified Anwar Ibrahim had indeed served as Prime Minister unlawfully, would that not place the dignity of the Royal Institution under unnecessary strain, embarrassment and uncomfortable constitutional position?

If the Federal Court later determines the Trump Agreement unlawful,  would that not equally cause embarrassment to the Royal Institution, raise profound institutional questions can cause severe embarrassment to the nation?

Article 130 of the Federal Constitution provides:

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may refer to the Federal Court

for its opinion any question as to the effect of any provision of

this Constitution which has arisen or appears to him likely to

arise, and the Federal Court shall pronounce in open court its

opinion on any question so referred to it.

Article 130 exists precisely for moments where constitutional certainty becomes essential to national stability. To respectfully urge an Article 130 Royal Reference is therefore not an act of disloyalty, but an affirmation of loyalty to the Constitution, the Monarchy, and the rule of law itself.

Former and current Ministers, Members of Parliament, judges, senior civil servants, and national leaders cannot afford to remain silent spectators while the nation stands at a perilous constitutional crossroads. Their oath, duty, and moral responsibility to defend the Constitution did not expire upon leaving office, nor can it be surrendered merely because they currently serve within the machinery of power and system.

At moments such as this, silence from those who once and currently swore to defend the Constitution is not neutrality. It is acquiescence and becomes dangerous.

History has repeatedly shown that constitutional erosion rarely begins with dramatic collapse — it begins with fear, indifference, political convenience, self-preservation by those within the system who choose silence to protect their privileged positions, and the collective failure of those entrusted with safeguarding the nation to speak when it matters most.

Malaysia’s constitutional institutions and public officeholders must now rise with courage, clarity, and statesmanship to call for full constitutional clarification through the wisdom, authority, and guardianship of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong — not to weaken the institutions of the Federation, but to prevent irreversible damage to their legitimacy, sanctity, and public confidence for generations yet unborn.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE ON ANWAR IBRAHIM’S APPOINTMENT

During proceedings in my constitutional challenge, counsel representing the Prime Minister admitted, on more than one occasion, that no express removal of disqualification under Article 48(3) of the Federal Constitution had been obtained from the Yang di-Pertuan Agong — while simultaneously claiming that such removal was not necessary.

The defence mounted by Anwar was not one addressing the substance of the constitutional issue through affidavit evidence. Instead, Anwar approached the challenge through a procedural strike-out application.

It is important for Malaysians to understand that my challenge was never an election petition under Article 118 of the Federal Constitution. I made this expressly clear before the Court.

For clarity, election petitions under the Election Offences Act 1954 are generally confined to limited classes of persons, ie:

My challenge, however, was fundamentally different. It concerned primarily Articles 48 and 50(2) of the Federal Constitution — provisions dealing with constitutional disqualification. The issue raised was therefore not electoral irregularity, but constitutional eligibility to contest, and whether the resulting constitutional consequences rendered the election void and, by extension, the appointment of Anwar Ibrahim as Prime Minister unconstitutional.

At its core, the question before the court was simple:

 b) Can a person confronted with grave, unresolved, and far-reaching constitutional questions be permitted to evade full judicial scrutiny through procedural strike-out proceedings — and more critically, should judges themselves allow such constitutional challenges to be shut out without a full hearing on the merits, despite the issues going directly to the legality of Anwar’s eligibility, appointment, and continued exercise of executive power?

c) Can procedural rules enacted solely to regulate court practice and procedure be invoked to defeat or prematurely extinguish a legitimate constitutional challenge concerning the alleged unlawful assumption of the office of Prime Minister by Anwar Ibrahim?

Sadly when courts permit constitutional controversies of this magnitude to be extinguished on procedural grounds before the evidence is tested and the constitutional questions fully ventilatedand determined, reasonable minds cannot help but wonder whether the Judiciary is advertently/inadvertently allowing technical mechanisms to override its higher constitutional duty to uphold the supremacy of the Federal Constitution and protect the nation from the dangerous normalisation of potentially unconstitutional power.

THE ART AGREEMENT AND THE ROLE OF THE RULERS

The second matter concerns the Trump Agreement signed by the Prime Minister on behalf of Malaysia.

Article 69 of the Federal Constitution states that only “The Federation has power make contracts”. The wording is deliberate. The Constitution does not give such power to the Prime Minister.

The Federation is a constitutional construct comprising multiple institutions — including Parliament, the Executive acting within constitutional limits, the Conference of Rulers, and ultimately the Yang di-Pertuan Agong functioning within the constitutional framework.

The concerns become even more serious where the agreement  touches matters affecting state interests, sovereignty considerations, and financial arrangements involving the various States.

Articles 38(2) and 71(1), together with the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, cannot simply be ignored whenever convenient to Anwar Ibrahim.

Article 38(2) safeguards the constitutional dignity and institutional role of the Conference of Rulers.
Article 71(1) guarantees the constitutional integrity of the States.
The Tenth Schedule regulates financial arrangements between the Federation and the States.

If an international agreement substantially affects national sovereignty,state matters, state resources, or areas touching the constitutional position of the Rulers, then serious constitutional questions arise as to whether:

i) the Prime Minister may constitutionally bind the Federation to an international agreement or contract without first obtaining prior parliamentary approval and the requisite Royal consultation; and

ii) the Prime Minister may lawfully commit the Federation to such an agreement first, and only thereafter seek parliamentary approval and Royal sanction.

Five Members of Parliament have now commenced legal proceedings challenging the constitutionality of the Prime Minister’s actions.

Again, the response of Anwar has been procedural  through strike-out application without addressing the core Constitutional powers vested upon him.

Again, substantive constitutional clarification risks being delayed.

Again, Malaysians are left wondering whether constitutional questions of immense national importance will ever receive a full and authoritative judicial determination before irreversible political consequences occur.

This raises uncomfortable but necessary question:

Both my application and the 5MPs’ to refer constitutional questions directly to the Federal Court under Article 128(2) and Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act was filed first. Yet in my case the Court elected to hear the strike-out application first before determining whether the constitutional questions warranted referral. Whether the same fate awaits the 5 MPs’ is yet to be seen.

If constitutional questions can be neutralised procedurally until time itself renders them academic, then constitutional accountability risks becoming dependent not upon constitutional supremacy , but on political timing, procedural manoeuvring, and the ability to evade substantive judicial scrutiny.

JUDICIAL RESTRAINT OR CONSTITUTIONAL ABDICATION?

At the end of the day, the Judiciary stands as the final constitutional sentinel and the last bastion of justice safeguarding the people against the arbitrary erosion of the constitutional order.

When grave questions arise concerning the legality of Anwar Ibrahim’s appointment, the sanctity of democratic institutions, and the constitutional position of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the Malay Rulers, Parliament, and the Federation itself, the courts cannot be seen to retreat behind procedural barriers or technical formalism. The nation looks to the Judiciary not merely to dispose of cases, but to courageously uphold constitutional supremacy, preserve public confidence in the rule of law, and ensure that no individual including Anwar Ibrahim — regardless of office, influence, or political power — stands above the Constitution

Many question whether the courts are sufficiently willing to exercise that power boldly when constitutional controversies involve the highest offices of the land.

No constitutional democracy can remain healthy if difficult constitutional questions are consistently deferred, narrowed, or rendered academic by procedural disposition before substantive adjudication occurs.

In light of the present grave constitutional circumstances, and the institutional stalemate caused — and likely to continue to be caused — by the existing weak judicial system, Malaysians from all walks of life should respectfully petition His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to invoke Article 130 of the Federal Constitution and refer these critical constitutional questions to the Federal Court for authoritative and conclusive determination by a full bench of the apex court, befitting the exceptional constitutional gravity, national importance, and far-reaching implications of the issues involved.

Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy
President

Malaysian Advancement Party

19th May 2026

Pengenalan

2 PERSOALAN PERLEMBAGAAN SERIUS

Bagaimanakah rakyat Malaysia seharusnya benar-benar bertindak apabila maruah, kedudukan perlembagaan dan kesucian institusi Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Raja-Raja Melayu serta demokrasi berparlimen berdepan dengan penghakisan yang serius dan belum pernah berlaku sebelum ini akibat daripada tindakan dan perlakuan seorang individu — Anwar Ibrahim — dalam keadaan yang cukup serius sehingga mencetuskan kebimbangan nasional yang mendalam, kewaspadaan perlembagaan, dan penelitian awam yang mendesak?

Persoalan ini menjadi jauh lebih serius dan sarat dengan implikasi perlembagaan apabila dinilai dalam konteks dua kontroversi luar biasa dan belum pernah berlaku sebelum ini yang kini sedang berada di hadapan mahkamah — kontroversi yang, pada pandangan mana-mana rakyat Malaysia yang waras, objektif dan berpemikiran rasional, sewajarnya mencetuskan tahap kewaspadaan perlembagaan yang paling tinggi, kebimbangan nasional yang mendalam, serta pendekatan institusi yang amat berhati-hati dan penuh tanggungjawab:

KUASA DYMM AGONG BAWAH PERKARA 130

Hakikatnya, kedua-dua kontroversi perlembagaan ini melibatkan persoalan yang menyentuh kuasa, maruah dan kedudukan perlembagaan Yang di-Pertuan Agong serta Raja-Raja Melayu.

Sekiranya, beberapa tahun kemudian, mahkamah akhirnya memutuskan bahawa Anwar Ibrahim sememangnya telah berkhidmat sebagai Perdana Menteri secara tidak sah dari sudut perlembagaan kerana kehilangan kelayakan tersebut, tidakkah keadaan itu akan meletakkan institusi Diraja dalam kedudukan yang amat tidak selesa dan membebankan dari sudut perlembagaan?

Sekiranya Mahkamah Persekutuan kemudiannya memutuskan bahawa Perjanjian Trump tersebut adalah tidak sah di sisi undang-undang, tidakkah perkara itu juga akan menimbulkan implikasi yang amat menjatuhkan martabat dan mengaibkan terhadap institusi Diraja dan mencetuskan persoalan institusi yang mendalam, dan mencemar nama Malaysia di kaca mata dunia?

Perkara 130 Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan:

Yang di-Pertuan Agong boleh merujukkan kepada Mahkamah

Persekutuan untuk pendapatnya apa-apa soal tentang kesan

mana-mana peruntukan Perlembagaan ini yang telah berbangkit

atau yang tampak padanya mungkin berbangkit, dan Mahkamah

Persekutuan hendaklah mengumumkan pendapatnya tentang

apa-apa soal yang dirujukkan sedemikian kepadanya itu di dalam

mahkamah terbuka.

Perkara 130 diwujudkan khusus untuk saat-saat di mana kepastian perlembagaan menjadi penting demi kestabilan negara. Oleh itu, menyeru secara penuh hormat agar suatu Rujukan Diraja di bawah Perkara 130 dibuat bukanlah suatu tindakan yang melanggar adat dan tatatertib istana, tetapi suatu penzahiran kesetiaan kepada Perlembagaan, Institusi Raja Berperlembagaan, dan kedaulatan undang-undang itu sendiri.

Samada bekas dan Menteri semasa, Ahli Parlimen, Hakim, penjawat awam kanan dan pemimpin negara tidak boleh terus menjadi pemerhati yang membisu ketika negara berada di persimpangan perlembagaan yang begitu berbahaya. Sumpah, tanggungjawab dan kewajipan moral mereka untuk mempertahankan Perlembagaan tidak terhapus hanya kerana mereka telah meninggalkan jawatan, ataupun kerana mereka kini berada dalam sistem kuasa dan pentadbiran negara.

Pada saat-saat seperti ini, sikap membisu daripada mereka yang pernah dan masih bersumpah mempertahankan Perlembagaan bukan lagi suatu sikap berkecuali. Ia merupakan satu bentuk keakuran — dan keakuran itu amat berbahaya.

Sejarah telah berulang kali membuktikan bahawa keruntuhan perlembagaan jarang bermula dengan kejatuhan yang dramatik — ia bermula dengan ketakutan, sikap tidak peduli, kepentingan politik, usaha mempertahankan kedudukan oleh mereka dalam sistem yang memilih untuk berdiam diri demi melindungi kepentingan sendiri, serta kegagalan kolektif mereka yang diamanahkan untuk mempertahankan negara daripada bersuara ketika ia paling diperlukan.

Institusi perlembagaan Malaysia dan para pemegang jawatanawam kini mesti bangkit dengan keberanian, kejelasan dan dengan penuh sikap kenegarawanan untuk menuntut penjelasan perlembagaan sepenuhnya melalui kebijaksanaan, kewibawaan dan naungan Yang di-Pertuan Agong — bukan untuk melemahkan institusi Persekutuan, tetapi demi mengelakkan kerosakan yang tidak dapat dipulihkan terhadap legitimasi, kesucian dan keyakinan rakyat terhadap institusi tersebut bagi generasi yang akan datang.

CABARAN PERLEMBAGAAN TERHADAP PELANTIKAN ANWAR IBRAHIM

Semasa prosiding cabaran perlembagaan saya, peguam yang mewakili Perdana Menteri telah mengakui, lebih daripada sekali, bahawa tiada pembatalan kehilangan kelayakan secara nyata di bawah Perkara 48(3) Perlembagaan Persekutuan diperolehi daripada Yang di-Pertuan Agong — namun pada masa yang sama mendakwa bahawa pembatalan kehilangan layak bertanding sedemikian tidak diperlukan.

Pembelaan yang dikemukakan oleh Anwar bukanlah untukmenjawab inti pati persoalan perlembagaan tersebut melalui keterangan afidavit. Sebaliknya, Anwar memilih untuk menangani cabaran itu melalui permohonan pembatalan secara prosedural (strike out).

Adalah penting untuk rakyat Malaysia memahami bahawa cabaran saya bukanlah suatu petisyen pilihan raya di bawah Perkara 118 Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Perkara ini telah saya nyatakan secara jelas di hadapan Mahkamah.

Untuk penjelasan, petisyen pilihan raya di bawah Akta Kesalahan Pilihan Raya 1954 lazimnya terhad kepada golongan tertentu sahaja, iaitu:

i) calon yang bertanding dalam pilihan raya tersebut; dan
ii) pengundi dalam kawasan pilihan raya berkenaan.

Namun, cabaran saya adalah berbeza secara asasnya. Ia melibatkan terutamanya Perkara 48 dan 50(2) Perlembagaan Persekutuan — peruntukan yang menyentuh kehilangan kelayakan untuk bertanding bawah perlembagaan. Oleh itu, isu yang dibangkitkan bukanlah ketidakaturan pilihan raya, tetapi kehilangan kelayakan perlembagaan untuk bertanding, dan sama ada akibat kehilangan kelayakan bertanding tersebut menjadikan pilihan raya itu terbatal dan seterusnya pelantikan Anwar Ibrahim sebagai Perdana Menteri tidak berperlembagaan.

Pada terasnya, persoalan di hadapan mahkamah adalah mudah:

a) Bolehkah seseorang yang masih tertakluk kepada kehilangan kelayakan bertanding dibawah perlembagaan yang berterusan menurut Perkara 48 secara sah mengemukakan kertas penamaan, bertanding dalam pilihan raya Parlimen, dipilih ke Dewan Rakyat, dan akhirnya memegang jawatan Perdana Menteri — atau adakah membenarkan rangkaian peristiwa sedemikian menjejaskan asas keluhuran perlembagaan, legitimasi pilihan raya dan kedaulatan undang-undang yang menjadi asas Persekutuan itu sendiri?

b) Bolehkah seseorang yang berhadapan dengan persoalan perlembagaan yang serius, belum diselesaikan dan mempunyai implikasi yang luas dibenarkan mengelak penelitian kehakiman sepenuhnya melalui prosiding pembatalan prosedural — dan yang lebih penting, patutkah hakim sendiri membenarkan cabaran perlembagaan sedemikian ditolak tanpa perbicaraan penuh atas merit, walaupun isu tersebut secara langsung menyentuh kesahihan kelayakan, pelantikan dan pelaksanaan kuasa eksekutif oleh Anwar?

c) Bolehkah kaedah-kaedah prosedur mahkamah yang digubal semata-mata untuk mengawal amalan dan tatacara mahkamah digunakan untuk menggagalkan atau menamatkan lebih awal suatu cabaran perlembagaan yang sah berkaitan pengambilalihan jawatan Perdana Menteri secara tidak sah oleh Anwar Ibrahim?

Malangnya, apabila mahkamah membenarkan pertikaian perlembagaan sebesar dan seserius ini dilupuskan atas alasan-alasan prosedural semata-mata sebelum keterangan diuji serta persoalan-persoalan perlembagaan tersebut dibicarakan, dihujahkan dan diputuskan sepenuhnya, mana-mana individu yang berfikiran waras pasti akan tertanya-tanya sama ada Badan Kehakiman, secara sedar ataupun tidak sedar, sedang membenarkan mekanisme teknikal mengatasi kewajipan perlembagaannya yang lebih tinggi untuk mempertahankan keluhuran Perlembagaan Persekutuan serta melindungi negara daripada penormalan berbahaya terhadap pelaksanaan kuasa yang berpotensi tidak berperlembagaan.

PERJANJIAN ART DAN PERANAN MAJLIS RAJA-RAJA

Perkara kedua melibatkan Perjanjian Trump yang ditandatangani oleh Perdana Menteri bagi pihak Malaysia.

Perkara 69 Perlembagaan Persekutuan menyatakan bahawahanya “Persekutuan mempunyai kuasa membuat kontrak”. Perkataan tersebut disengajakan. Perlembagaan tidak memberikan kuasa tersebut kepada Perdana Menteri.

Persekutuan ialah suatu binaan perlembagaan yang terdiri daripada pelbagai institusi — termasuk Parlimen, Eksekutif yang bertindak dalam batas perlembagaan, Majlis Raja-Raja, dan akhirnya Yang di-Pertuan Agong yang berfungsi dalam kerangka perlembagaan.

Kebimbangan menjadi lebih serius apabila perjanjian tersebut menyentuh perkara yang melibatkan kepentingan negeri, pertimbangan kedaulatan, dan urusan kewangan yang melibatkan Negeri-Negeri.

Perkara 38(2) dan 71(1), bersama-sama Jadual Kesepuluh Perlembagaan, tidak boleh diketepikan sesuka hati demi memenuhi kehendak politik Anwar Ibrahim.

Perkara 38(2) melindungi maruah perlembagaan dan peranan institusi Majlis Raja-Raja.

Perkara 71(1) menjamin integriti perlembagaan Negeri-Negeri.

Jadual Kesepuluh mengawal selia pengaturan kewangan antara Persekutuan dan Negeri-Negeri.

Sekiranya suatu perjanjian antarabangsa memberi kesan besar terhadap kedaulatan negara, hal ehwal negeri, sumber negeri, atau perkara yang menyentuh kedudukan perlembagaan Raja-Raja, maka persoalan perlembagaan yang serius timbul sama ada:

i) Perdana Menteri boleh secara perlembagaan mengikat Persekutuan kepada suatu perjanjian atau kontrak antarabangsa tanpa terlebih dahulu mendapatkan kelulusan Parlimen dan rundingan Diraja yang sewajarnya; dan

ii) Perdana Menteri boleh secara sah mengikat Persekutuan kepada perjanjian sedemikian terlebih dahulu, dan hanya selepas itu mendapatkan kelulusan Parlimen serta perkenan Diraja.

Lima Ahli Parlimen kini telah memulakan tindakan undang-undang mencabar keperlembagaan tindakan Perdana Menteri tersebut.

Sekali lagi, respons Anwar adalah bersifat prosedural melalui permohonan pembatalan tanpa menjawab inti pati kuasa perlembagaan sebenar yang terletak padanya.

Sekali lagi, penjelasan perlembagaan secara substantif berisiko dilengah-lengahkan.

Sekali lagi, rakyat Malaysia tertanya-tanya sama ada persoalan perlembagaan yang begitu penting kepada negara akan  menerima penentuan kehakiman yang penuh dan berwibawa sebelum berlakunya kesan politik yang tidak dapat dipulihkan.

Ini menimbulkan persoalan yang tidak selesa tetapi perlu ditanya:

Kedua-dua permohonan saya dan permohonan 5 Ahli Parlimen untuk merujuk persoalan perlembagaan secara terus kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan di bawah Perkara 128(2) dan Seksyen 84 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman telah difailkan terlebih dahulu. Namun dalam kes saya, Mahkamah memilih untuk mendengar permohonan pembatalan terlebih dahulu sebelum menentukan sama ada persoalan perlembagaan tersebut wajar dirujuk. Sama ada nasib yang sama akan menimpa 5 Ahli Parlimen tersebut masih belum diketahui.

Sekiranya persoalan perlembagaan boleh dineutralkan secara prosedural sehingga akhirnya masa sendiri menjadikannya akademik, maka kebertanggungjawaban perlembagaan akhirnya bergantung bukan kepada keluhuran Perlembagaan, tetapi kepada masa politik, percaturan prosedural, dan keupayaan mengelakkan penelitian kehakiman substantif.

PENGENDALIAN KEHAKIMAN ATAU PENGABAIAN PERLEMBAGAAN?

Kesimpulannya, Badan Kehakiman berdiri sebagai benteng terakhir perlembagaan dan kubu terakhir keadilan yang melindungi rakyat daripada penghakisan sewenang-wenangnya terhadap tertib perlembagaan negara.

Apabila timbul persoalan serius mengenai keabsahan pelantikan Anwar Ibrahim, kesucian institusi demokrasi, dan kedudukan perlembagaan Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Raja-Raja Melayu, Parlimen dan Persekutuan itu sendiri, mahkamahtidak boleh dilihat berlindung di sebalik halangan prosedur atau formaliti teknikal. Negara memandang kepada Badan Kehakiman bukan sekadar untuk melupuskan kes, tetapi untuk dengan berani menegakkan keluhuran perlembagaan, memelihara keyakinan awam terhadap kedaulatan undang-undang, dan memastikan bahawa tiada sesiapa termasukAnwar Ibrahim — tanpa mengira jawatan, pengaruh ataukuasa politik — berada di atas Perlembagaan.

Ramai mempersoalkan sama ada mahkamah benar-benar bersedia menggunakan kuasa tersebut dengan tegas apabila kontroversi perlembagaan melibatkan jawatan tertinggi negara.

Tiada demokrasi berperlembagaan dapat kekal sihat sekiranya persoalan perlembagaan yang sukar terus-menerus ditangguhkan, disempitkan, atau dijadikan akademik melalui pelupusan prosedural sebelum penghakiman substantif berlaku.

Memandangkan keadaan perlembagaan negara yang amat serius ketika ini, serta kebuntuan institusi yang telah dan berkemungkinan akan terus berlaku akibat kelemahan sistem kehakiman sedia ada, rakyat Malaysia daripada semua lapisan masyarakat sewajarnya dengan penuh hormat memohon kepada Kebawah Duli Yang Maha Mulia Yang di-Pertuan Agong supaya menggunakan Perkara 130 Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan merujuk persoalan-persoalan perlembagaan yang kritikal ini kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan untuk penentuan yang berwibawa dan muktamad oleh suatu panel penuh mahkamah tertinggi negara, selaras dengan tahap keseriusan perlembagaan yang luar biasa, kepentingan nasional, dan implikasi luas yang terlibat.

Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy
Presiden
Parti Kemajuan Malaysia (MAP)
19 Mei 2026