JUSTICIABILITY OF LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS: A LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE MALAYSIAN COURTS’ APPROACH

The issue of whether courts can review legislative processes has always been at centre stage in constitutional discourse. Sometimes, some members of the legislature, being aggrieved on certain decisions or procedures the leadership of the House adopts in a situation, approach the courts for its intervention. Yet, Malaysian legal and constitutional frameworks seem to be that proceedings of the legislature are not justiciable. Based on this premise, the paper is intended to analyse the Malaysian courts’ approach towards actions brought to challenge certain proceedings of the legislature by the aggrieved members. To achieve this, the paper analyses issues relating to suspension of legislative members; removal of legislative members from committees or as principal members; disqualification of legislative members; injunction to stop the proceedings of the legislature; and confirmatory proceedings of the legislature. It uses provisions of Malaysian Constitution, courts’ decisions and opinions of experts to enrich this study. The paper finds that courts’ attitude has been largely that of the hands’ tied approach despite sufficient constitutional stings in members’ actions which should have justified the courts’ intervention.