Food for thought…
A 1988 amendment to Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution to remove judicial power from judges did not have the desired effect, Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat said.
Constitution must be interpreted in light of its historical and philosophical context, underlying fundamental principles; as in the Westminster’s model, a separation of power among the ‘branches of government’; inherent within, the judiciary role as the ultimate-arbiter corollary to the ‘rules of law’; in no-way inimical to democratic government; but also to interpret statutes, as on par with the ‘sovereignty of Parliament’; thus this ‘basic structure’ cannot be abrogated or removed by a constitutional amendment; thus a feature intrinsic to the constitution itself as the supreme-law; vesting upon the judicial power to review against unconstitutional legislation, whether or not it is expressly stated; bringing about the significance that judicial-power cannot be removed from civil-courts.
Any other courts, i.e. the Syariah Courts, a creature of State Legislative creation, cannot be vested with judicial power as it is unequal to the ‘superior court’ in accordance to the constitutional provisions; repugnant even if the Parliament attempt to amend the constitution to give power to the Syariah Courts.
 Canadian Supreme Court on Reference re Senate Reform 2014 SCC 32
 Mohd Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor  SGHC 163
 Pengarah Tanah dan Galian WP v Sri Lempah Enterprise  1 MLJ 135; and R(Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU  UKSC 5
 Canadian Supreme Court on Reference re Secession of Quebec(supra)
 R(application of Jackson and Ors) v Attorney General  UKHL 56
 Tan Seet Eng v Attorney General & Ors  SGCA 59
 Kesavananda Bharti v State of Kerela AIR 1973 SC 1461
 Art.4 Singapore Constitution; Attorney General v Taylor  NZ CA 215; Semenyih Jaya v Pentadbir Tanah Hulu Langat  3 MLJ 36: judicial power vested in the High Courts by virtue of Art.121(1) Malaysian Constitution
 Lim Kit Siang v Dato Seri Dr Mahathir Mohd  1 MLJ 383
 Hinds v The Queen  AC 195
 Public Prosecutor v Dato Yap Peng  2 MLJ 311
 Art 121 Malaysia Constitution
 Abdul Kahar b. Ahmad v Kerajaan Malaysia and Ors  2 MLJ 617: purport of Art121(1A); Dalip Kaur v Pegawai Polis Bukit Mertajam Anor  1 MLJ 1
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply.
I am sharing these information with a caveat that these information is for educational purpose only and shall not be taken as an advice be it legal or otherwise. You should seek proper advice to your case with the relevant professionals. The author cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information so provided here.