The court ruled that the Proclamation of Emergency and the Emergency Ordinance are non-justiciable under Article 150(8) of the Constitution, excluding judicial review and affirming the High Courts' dismissal of the applications.

Introduction

[1] Three (3) appeals before us emanated from the High Courts in Kuala Lumpur and Johor Bahru. They are as follows:

(i) Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim v. Dato' Muhyiddin Mohd Yassin (The Prime Minister of Malaysia) & Anor (W-01(A)-227-05/2021), a decision by Mariana Yahya J at High Court of Kuala Lumpur ('DSAI's appeal');

(ii) Datuk Seri Salahuddin Ayub & Ors v. Perdana Menteri, Dato' Mahiaddin Md Yasin & Anor (W-01(A)-145-03/2021), a decision by Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid J at High Court of Kuala Lumpur ('DSSA's appeal'); and

(iii) Hassan Abdul Karim v. Perdana Menteri, Dato' Mahiaddin Md Yasin & Anor (J-01 (IM)-226-05/2021); a decision by Evrol Mariette Peters JC at High Court of Johor Bahru ('HAK's appeal').

[2] For this judgment, we will refer to the three (3) appeals as "the appeals" unless otherwise stated. We have considered the appeals based on their pleaded prayers in the respective applications at the High Court.

[3] DSSA's appeal and HAK's appeal were heard together on 18 August 2012 and were adjourned for a decision on 30 September 2021. Subsequently, DSAI's appeal was fixed for hearing before us on 28 September 2021. After hearing both parties in DSAI's appeal, we found that the main issues in the appeals were identical. To save judicial time, we delivered our decision on the appeals together on the same day.

[4] The Appellants in the appeals are either members of Parliament or the state legislative assembly.

[5] The appeals arose from the applications for leave to apply for judicial review under O 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 (' ROC ') to challenge the validity of the Proclamation of Emergency dated 11 January 2021 published in the Federal Government Gazette P.U.(A) 7/2021 on 12 January 2021 ('Proclamation of Emergency') and the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance 2021 published in the Federal Government Gazette P.U.(A) 12/2021 on 14 January 2021 ('Ordinance').

[6] All three High Courts dismissed the aforesaid applications. Aggrieved by the decisions of the High Courts, the Appellants appealed to this Court.

Background Facts

[7] We adopt the background facts as stated by the High Courts with modifications where necessary. In an effort to curb the rising cases of COVID-19, a nationwide lockdown was imposed under the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988 ('1988 Act'), known as the Movement Control Order ('MCO'), effective from 18 March 2020 to 31 March 2020, published as a Federal Government Gazette P.U.(A) 91/2020 on 18 March 2020 ('MCO Regulations').

[8] Due to rising COVID-19 cases, the MCO period was extended and the MCO Regulations were amended from time to time.

[9] The Government also declared stricter lockdown, known as the Enhanced Movement Control Order ('EMCO'), in specific places where clusters of COVID-19 cases existed, according to the provisions under the 1988 Act. Despites various steps taken by the Government at that material time, the COVID-19 infection continued to rise.

[10] On 12 January 2021, two statements were released to the public on the issuance of a Proclamation of Emergency under art 150(1) of the Constitution made a day earlier by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong ("YDPA"), as follows:

(a) Media Statement issued on behalf of Istana Negara; and

(b) Speech Text of the 1st Responden