Latest news with #MohamedHaniffKhatriAbdulla
Malay Mail
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
In latest bid, lawyer sues to make Federal Constitution's BM translation override original English text
KUALA LUMPUR, July 22 — Lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla has filed a lawsuit against the Malaysian government, as he wants the Bahasa Malaysia translation of the Federal Constitution to be the authoritative text or to override the original text which is in English. In his court challenge filed last night at the High Court in Kuala Lumpur, Haniff is seeking two main court orders. He wants the court to declare that the Federal Constitution's text in the national language is the authoritative text under Article 160B, and that this national language text would prevail over the text in the English language, if there are any conflicts or discrepancies between the two texts. Alternatively, he wants the court to order the Malaysian government to take all necessary steps to ensure that the national language text of the Federal Constitution is prescribed to be the authoritative text within five years from the court order. The Federal Constitution's Article 160B states that when the Constitution has been translated into the national language, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong 'may prescribe' the national language text to be authoritative, and that it would then prevail over the English language text if there are any conflicts or discrepancies. In his lawsuit, Haniff argued that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's 2003 'launch' of the BM translation of the Federal Constitution would amount to 'prescribing' it as the authoritative text. This is not the first time that Haniff has raised this argument in the courts to claim that the BM text is the authoritative version, as he has previously raised it on behalf of Islamic religious bodies to argue that unilateral religious conversions of children are valid. Previously, the Federal Court had in 2018 unanimously decided in Hindu mother M. Indira Gandhi's case that the Federal Constitution's English text is authoritative as there is no evidence that the BM text has been prescribed to be authoritative. The Federal Court in 2024 had also unanimously in Hindu mother Loh Siew Hong's case ruled that the Federal Constitution's English text is the authoritative text and held that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong had not prescribed the BM translation to be authoritative. The Federal Constitution was drafted in the English language and it has been the authoritative text in Malaysia since 1963, while the BM translation was reportedly launched in 2003. The latest reprint as of 2020 of the Federal Constitution's BM translation carries this note: 'Teks ini HANYALAH TERJEMAHAN oleh Jabatan Peguam Negara bagi Federal Constitution. Melainkan jika dan sehingga ditetapkan sahih di bawah Perkara 160B Perlembagaan Persekutuan, teks ini bukan perundangan'. In English, the note means: 'This text is ONLY A TRANSLATION by the Attorney General's Chambers for the Federal Constitution. Unless and until prescribed as authoritative under Article 160B of the Federal Constitution, this text is not law.' In 2023, then attorney general Tan Sri Idrus Harun announced plans to propose for the Federal Constitution's BM text to be the authoritative text under Article 160B, and said this plan would be subject to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's approval.
Sinar Daily
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Sinar Daily
Calls grow for judicial reforms to avoid future appointment disputes
SHAH ALAM - The Malaysian government's recent move to enhance transparency in the appointment of superior court judges has been welcomed as a critical step to prevent recurring disputes in the judicial system. Lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla said this was the right direction forward and emphasised the need for continued efforts to review and strengthen the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Act 2009, along with judicial appointment and promotion procedures. "This is a positive sign because everyone knows that the concept of appointing and promoting judges needs to be thoroughly reviewed and refined to avoid becoming a future issue. "The current vacancies in the positions of Chief Justice and President of the Court of Appeal are also the main concerns," he told Sinar. Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said had earlier assured the public that the unity government was aware of the concerns raised through the 'Walk to Safeguard Judicial Independence.' She said the government would address the issue responsibly and transparently in accordance with the Federal Constitution. Azalina also announced that a Comparative Study of Judicial Appointment Systems is being carried out by the Legal Affairs Division (BHEUU) under the Prime Minister's Department, in collaboration with Special Select Committees from the Dewan Negara and Dewan Rakyat. To ensure long-term reform, Haniff proposed the formation of a Royal Commission of Inquiry, with royal consent, to evaluate the system in-depth. "Appoint commissioners to be part of it with terms of reference that they wish to study and then give them time around nine to twelve months to conduct the study and provide recommendations. "The main weakness in the judicial appointment process, as I see it, lies within the JAC itself, because it needs to be fully recognised under the Federal Constitution. Currently, there is no full recognition under Article 122B of the Federal Constitution. "Article 122B states that four parties are involved in the appointment of judges, namely the Prime Minister, the Agong and the Conference of Rulers. Before the Prime Minister presents names to the Conference of Rulers, he may consult the Chief Justice. "The JAC, on the other hand, only plays an advisory role to the Prime Minister and its recommendations are not constitutionally binding under Article 122B, so the Prime Minister is not obligated to follow them," he said. Haniff also declined to comment on a proposed judicial tribunal discussed during a meeting between Pakatan Harapan MPs and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, saying the issue was not timely. In a separate view, constitutional expert Associate Professor Datuk Dr Wan Ahmad Fauzi Wan Husain pointed out that judicial appointments were already covered within the Federal Constitution and should not be sensationalised. He said if the Chief Justice post becomes vacant, the President of the Court of Appeal is constitutionally authorised to take over the duties. If that role is also vacant, the Chief Judge of Malaya can assume the responsibilities. "The problem arises when this issue is polemicised by parties with vested interests. Generally, there are three groups voicing out on the appointment of the Chief Justice. The first are those who want Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat's term to be extended because they believe her decisions have favoured their interests. "Secondly, there are those who want to take advantage of the situation for political gain and thirdly, perhaps a small group that wishes for the appointment of judges by the Agong, in consultation with the Conference of Rulers, to no longer follow the advice of the Prime Minister, but instead be based on the recommendation of an independent commission," he said.
