The legality of the actions of the sultan was considered by the courts.
22
At firstinstance, the High Court in Kuala Lumpur held Nizar’s dismissal unlawful,
(^23) but
the decision was reversed on appeal by the Court of Appeal^24 and the Federal
Court.^25 The sultan, by virtue of Articlexviii( 2 ) of the Perak Constitution, ‘may act
in his discretion’ in relation to ‘the appointment of a Menteri Besar’ and
‘the withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of the Legislative
Assembly’. However, the Perak constitution is silent on the power of the sultan to
remove a Menteri Besar. Articlexvi( 6 ) of the Perak constitution states that if the
Menteri Besar ‘ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members
of the Legislative Assembly, then, unless at his request His Royal Highness dissolves
the Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council’.
Articlexxxvi( 2 ) provides that the sultan may prorogue or dissolve the Legislative
Assembly.
The sultan, who once occupied the highest judicial office, would have been fully
familiar with the case ofStephen Kalong Ningkanv.Tun Abang Haji Openg.
26
This case reinforces the view that the best test of a failure to command a majority of
the members of the House of Representatives is by a vote of no confidence on the
floor of parliament. The provision of the Perak constitution relating to the failure to
‘command the confidence’ of a majority of the Legislative Assembly is substantially
similar to that of the constitution of Sarawak under consideration by Harley Ag CJ
in the High Court in Kuching in 1966. Given the controversial nature of the
political tussle, this would have been the better way to protect the neutral image
of the sultan and to enhance constitutional rule in Malaysia.
If the loss of confidence is achieved by defections from the government bench to
the opposition and the Menteri Besar chooses not to resign and instead
Mohamed J of the High Court inSivakumar a/l Varatharaju Naiduv.Ganesan a/l
Retanam[ 2010 ] 7 MLJ 355.
(^22) See Andrew Harding, ‘Crises of Confidence and Perak’s Constitutional Impasse’, Center for
Policy Initiatives, 7 June 2009 ,http://english.cpiasia.net/index.php?option=com_content&
view=article&id= 1581 :prof-drandrew-harding-on-crises-of-confidence-and-peraks-constitu-
tional-impasse-; Andrew Harding, ‘The Perak constitutional crisis: an epilogue’, in
Audrey Quay (ed.),Perak: A State of Crisis(Malaysia: LoyarBurok Publications, 2010 ),
p. 165 ; N.H. Chan, ‘A Prima Facie Farce in Zambry v Nizar’,Malaysiakini, 8 July 2009 ,
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/ 108046.
(^23) Dato’ Seri Ir Hj Mohammad Nizar bin Jamaluddinv.Dato’ Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir;
Attorney general (Intervener)[ 2009 ] 5 MLJ 108 (HC).
(^24) Dato’ Dr Zambry bin Abd Kadirv.Dato’ Seri Ir Hj Mohammad Nizar bin Jamaluddin;
Attorney General of Malaysia (Intervener)[ 2009 ] 5 CLJ 265 (CA).
(^25) Dato’ Seri Ir Hj Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddinv.Dato’ Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir;
Attorney General (Intervener)[ 2010 ] 2 CLJ 925 (FC).
(^26) Stephen Kalong Ningkanv.Tun Abang Haji Openg and Tawi Sli[ 1966 ] 2 MLJ 187 ;
Adegbenrov.Akintola[ 1963 ] 3 All ER 544 ; Tun Datuk Haji Mustapha bin Datu Harunv.
Tun Datuk Haji Mohamed Adnan Robert, Yang di-Pertua Negeri Sabah & Datuk Joseph
Pairin Kitingan (No 2 )[ 1986 ] 2 MLJ 420 ; Datuk Amir Kahar Tun Mustaphav.Tun
Mohamed Said Keruak[ 1995 ] 1 CLJ 184.