Law on Rulers passed outside Dewan Rakyat, what a mockery

By Syed Jaymal Zahiid

KUALA LUMPUR: The constitutional amendment which provides proceedings in the Special Court be held behind closed doors was gazetted without the approval of Parliament.

This revelation was made in the Dewan Rakyat when a motion on the matter raised by DAP lawmaker Karpal Singh was rejected by the House Speaker in chambers.

The Special Court is the court set up under Article 182 of the Federal Constitution to ensure Rulers be held accountable for their actions.

On Nov 10, Minister in the Prime Minister Department Nazri Abdul Aziz said the law was amended following the request by the Conference of Rulers.

It was then discussed in the Cabinet with the consultation of the Chief Justice and subsequently gazetted on Aug 10 under Rule 14A of the Rules of Special Court.

Karpal said the matter has grave repercussions given that "a citizen can be sued by a Ruler in the Special Court automatically while a citizen is further handicapped as he cannot sue a Ruler in civil or criminal capacity without the consent of the Attorney-General".

"This provision has not received the corresponding approval of the rakyat," Karpal said in his motion.

"Rule 14A is a draconian provision which militates against the Rule of Law as generally all proceedings in courts are open to the public to ensure transparency.

"The Council of Rulers should not be allowed to arbitrarily take this step on the principle of equality before the law. The law is no respecter of persons however high," he added.

Karpal had tried to raise the matter in the House despite having his motion rejected but was shot down by Deputy Speaker Ronald Kiandee.

Kiandee said the matter was answered by Nazri during his winding-up speech during the Budget 2011 committee stage debate two weeks ago.

He also cited Parliamentary Standing Order 18 (8) where any motion rejected in chambers cannot be discussed in the House.

The amendment, slipped through with almost non-existent media coverage, has met fierce protest by lawyers who are planning to protest against the amendment via an online campaign.