The court affirmed that a statutory body can seek judicial review in public interest, establishing locus standi and addressing breaches of constitutional duties under Article 112D.

[1] This is an application for leave by Sabah Law Society's (SLS) for judicial review of The Government of the Federation of Malaysia's decision and for the remedies of certiorari declaration, mandamus, and payment of entitlement and/or constitutional damages under ROC 2012, O 53 r 3(2).

[2] The decision is contained in a Federal Government Gazette publication dated 20 April 2022; the respondent published an order "The Federal Constitution (Review Of Special Grant Under art 112D) (State Of Sabah) Order 2022" ('review order 2022').

[3] The application for leave was opposed by the Federal AG (AG). The second respondent was also heard at this leave hearing after they were allowed to intervene. After hearing the submissions of the parties, I allowed the application for leave, as I am of the view that there are merits in the applicant's arguments that they have the locus standi to institute the JR application and that they have also shown that they are entitled to commence the judicial review as a public interest litigation.

[4] The facts leading to this application have been sufficiently set out by the applicant in the cause papers and they are hardly any dispute to the facts.

[5] The basis of the objection to the leave application by the AG centres mainly around two main issues. First is the locus standi of the applicant and second is the issue of the non-justiciable.

The Issue Of Locus Standi

[6] It is the AG's contention that the applicants have failed to show that they were within the provision of "any person adversely affected by the decision" as stated in O 53 r 2(4) of the ROC 2012. Further, it was also argued that there was no decision, action or omission falling within the ambit of the said order, hence the applicant has no locus standi.

(See: Malaysian Trade Union Congress & Ors v. Menteri Tenaga, Air Dan Komunikasi & Anor 2014 MarsdenLR 816; ; [2014] 2 CLJ 525; [2014] 2 AMR 101 and QSR Brands Bhd v. Suruhanjaya Sekuriti & Anor 2006 MarsdenLR 1641; ; 2006 MarsdenLR 2982 ; ).

[7] Further, it was argued that to seek a declaration, the applicant must establish that he had acquired a legal status or rights against the respondents which required to be protected by declaratory orders.

[8] As the applicant had also applied for an order of mandamus, the I applicant must also fulfil the conditions of s 44 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 . (See Semantan Estate 1987 MarsdenLR 1 ; 1987 MarsdenLR 763 ; [1987] CLJ (Rep) 329).

[9] In the present case, it was also argued that the applicant has neither a sufficient personal interest nor this application is a public interest litigation.

[10] It was further submitted that by virtue of art 112D(1) of the Federal Constitution , the adversely affected persons pursuant to O 53 r 2(4) of the ROC 2012 are the Governments ie, the Federal Government and the State Government of Sabah.

The Non-Justiciable Issue

[11] In this regard, it was submitted that the crux of this judicial review application by the applicant is the review of the special grant exercised under art 112D(1) of the Federal Constitution .

[12] It was further submitted that the exercise of this review of the special grant involves non-legal factors pursuant to art 112D(2) of the Federal Constitution where the review of the special grant shall take into account the financial ability of the Federal Government as well as the needs of the State Government of Sabah.

[13] In support of this issue, the AG refers to the Federal Court's decision in the case of Yang Dipertua, Dewan