PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court heard yesterday that issues raised by Sungai Siput member of parliament Dr Michael Jeyakumar over special constituency allocations were matters of policy consideration and management prerogative and therefore the Court of Appeal was correct in its ruling that the latter’s application was not judicially reviewable.
Senior Federal Counsel S Narkunavathy submitted that allocations for the constituencies could only be decided by either the Implementation Coordination Unit (special constituency ICU) of the Prime Minister’s Department or the Perak state development office (PPN Perak) director.
She submitted that the matter did not require for substantive hearing at the High Court since a letter from PPN Perak dated July 26, 2010 to Dr Michael had explained in detail on allocations totalling RM1.5 million involving some 47 projects for the Sg Siput constituency.
Narkunavathy said all the constituencies in the state (Perak) were entitled to special allocations, where both the ICU and PPN were entrusted with the money.
“Those information sought by the appellant was already at the High Court and has been explained in Parliament, where it clearly involves policy considerations and treasury guidelines in approving allocations,” she explained.
“The constituency allocation is not only to the respective constituencies but also to NGOs at the respective constituency,” she added.
She also told the five-man bench presided by Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif that the allocation was not disbursed directly to the MPs but managed by both respondents.
The other federal court judges on the bench were Tan Sri Zulkifli Ahmad Makinuddin, Datuk Hashim Yusoff, Datuk Ahmad Maarof and Datuk Suriyadi Halim Omar.
Narkunavathy submitted further that there was clearly no basis for the appellant to seek the intervention of the court to declare something wehn the issue was already clear and unambiguous.
Therefore, the court should have rightly refused to be party to such proceedings, she said.
Meanwhile, the appellant’s counsel Datuk S Ambiga submitted that the Appeal Court’s decision should be set aside and the High Court order dated Feb 25, 2011 restored. Ambiga contended that it involved a case of public interest and the court should intervene to be seen to have acted fairly in the matter.
“What the appellant is seeking here is to allow the judicial review for all parties to be heard in full before deciding on the matter since this is considered a test case,” argued Ambiga.
She argued that the appellant’s main complaint was what were the guidelines on the allocations and what all the MPs were entitled to.
“All parliamentarians should be treated fairly on this matter.
What we are seeking here is not something that is immune from judicial review,” argued Ambiga.
She said that whether the appellant would succeed at the High Court or not was a secondary matter, but they (the respondents) should put the evidence before the court to arrive at a decision whether the government acted mala fide or abused its power in this matter.
The Federal Court reserved judgment on whether to revert the matter to the High Court for a full hearing or uphold the decision of the Court of Appeal which dismissed the judicial review application.
In February last year, the High Court dismissed the Attorney-General’s objection and allowed Dr Michael’s leave application on the ground that mere assertion that the matter of management prerogative and therefore not reviewable was insufficient as it was a question of evidence, that should be fully heard.
However, on appeal by the AG’s office, the Court of Appeal ruled that the respondent was correct in rejecting allocations sought by the appellant (Dr Michael) since the respondent had properly exercised his discretion in line with policy considerations and management prerogative.
In allowing the AG’s appeal, the Appeals Court also held that the appellant’s complaint was legally unsustainable and not judicially reviewable.
In Oct 29, 2010, the appellant filed for leave for judicial review and named the director-general of the Implementation Coordination Unit (ICU) of the Prime Minister’s Department, the Perak state development office (PPN Perak) director and Government of Malaysia as the first, second and third respondents, respectively.
Among others, Dr Michael is seeking a writ to be issued against the respondents for them to give information as to their authority to exercise the discretion to approve and disburse funds from the federal consolidated fund and special constituency allocations.
He is also seeking an order to compel the respondents to specify the kind of projects and activities for which special constituency allocations will be granted, who can apply for the funds, the criteria considered in granting the funds and the time limit for a decision on an application to be made.
Dr Michael also wants a declaration that in accordance with Article 8 (1) of the Federal Constitution, the special constituency allocations be provided to all MPs equally, regardless of political affiliation. — Bernama