PUTRAJAYA: Ten Negri Sembilan state executive councillors have turned to the Federal Court to challenge the revocation of their appointments by the Yang di-Pertuan Besar Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir last month.
They are seeking a ruling on whether the Ruler has the constitutional authority to revoke their appointments without the advice of the menteri besar.
The applicants are Datuk Mohd Faizal Ramli, Datuk Zaifulbahri Idris, Datuk Mustapha Nagoor, Siow Kong Choon, Siti Nur Umairah Hashim, Datuk Mohd Asna Amin, Datuk Mohd Razi Mohd Ali, Suhaimizan Bizar, Mohd Fairuz Mohd Isa and Datuk Razali Abu Samah.
In a notice of motion filed on Oct 14, they challenged the revocation of their appointments, which was gazetted on Sept 24 and stated to take effect from Sept 20.
They are asking the Federal Court to determine whether the revocations were carried out in accordance with the state constitution and, if not, whether they should be declared null, void and ineffective.
The Negri Sembilan State Secretary and the state government have been named as the first and second respondents, respectively.
According to court documents sighted by the New Straits Times, the application was filed under Article XXXIV(2) of the Negri Sembilan Constitution 1959, which provides for constitutional questions to be referred to the Federal Court.
The application stems from an originating summons filed by the 10 applicants at the Seremban High Court earlier this month over the revocation of their appointments.
At the centre of the dispute is Article XXXVIII(5) of the state constitution, which provides that a member of the State Executive Council holds office at the pleasure of the Ruler.
The applicants want the Federal Court to determine whether the provision allows the Yang di-Pertuan Besar to withdraw his consent to an executive councillor's appointment without first obtaining the advice of the menteri besar.
They are also seeking clarification on whether the phrase "at the Ruler's pleasure" grants unrestricted powers to revoke such appointments, regardless of other constitutional provisions governing the exercise of royal powers.
Another question raised is whether the reference to the "Ruler" under Article XXXVIII(5), when read together with Article XXVIII(1), empowers the Yang di-Pertuan Besar to act independently of the menteri besar's advice.
The applicants are seeking a determination on whether the revocation, published in the Negri Sembilan Government Gazette under N.S. P.U. 18 on Sept 24, would be unconstitutional and invalid if the Ruler was required to act on such advice.
The constitutional questions also involve Articles XXXVIII(2), XXXVIII(3), XXXVIII(4), XL(1), XL(1A) and XL(2) of the state constitution.
The applicants want the Federal Court to determine the constitutional questions before either disposing of the underlying case or returning it to the Seremban High Court for disposal in accordance with its ruling.
They are also seeking an expedited hearing, citing the significance of the constitutional issues and their implications for the positions of state executive councillors.
The applicants said the originating summons remained unresolved and were scheduled for case management at the Seremban High Court today.
The controversy began on Sept 20 when the palace announced that Tuanku Muhriz had revoked the appointments of all 10 state executive councillors with immediate effect.
The palace said the decision followed their actions and statements on Sept 15, which it said were inconsistent with the oath they had taken to remain loyal to the Ruler and the royal institution, uphold the state constitution and recognise the authority of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang.
© New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd