A petition challenging the constitutionality of laws must be grounded in appropriate jurisdiction; inconsistency challenges cannot originate in the Federal Court.

Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ:

Introduction

[1] This is a petition filed in the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Federal Court pursuant to leave granted by a Judge of this Court under art 4(3) and (4) of the Federal Constitution (' FC '). The petition essentially sought to challenge the constitutional validity of ss 63 and 64 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 ('AMLATPUAA 2001').

[2] The reliefs sought vide para 18 of the petition are as follows:

"18.1. A declaration that s 63 of Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 is invalid and/ or void because it is inconsistent with and contrary to art 5 and/ or art 8 of the Federal Constitution ;

18.2. A declaration that s 64 of Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 is invalid and/ or void because it is inconsistent with and contrary to art 5 and/ or art 8 of the Federal Constitution ;

18.3. Such further and/ or other reliefs deemed fit and just by this Honourable Court.".

[3] Upon perusing the petition and upon considering the written and oral submissions of parties, we were constrained to strike out the petition. We now provide the grounds for our decision.

Background Facts

[4] The petitioner is a party to at least two criminal forfeiture proceedings initiated by the Public Prosecutor respectively in two separate criminal applications ('the motions'). In both the motions, the Public Prosecutor alleged that the petitioner has absconded and, on that basis, sought to invoke ss 63 and 64 of the AMLATPUAA 2001 against the petitioner. The petitioner opposed the motions and the motions have been stayed pending the disposal of this petition. For reasons that will be apparent later, we do not find it necessary to reproduce ss 63 and 64 of the AMLATPUAA 2001.

[5] The respondent, in their defence to the petition, resisted this petition on several grounds but the one we found most relevant is the argument that the subject-matter of this petition is an inconsistency challenge and not an incompetency challenge. The respondent thus maintained that the subject-matter of the petition is beyond the original jurisdiction of this Court and as such, leave to file this petition ought not to have been granted. The respondent has been consistent in taking this position as they advanced the same argument at the leave stage which was evidently rejected.

[6] The respondent's objection raised a crucial question: can this Court consider the question of its own jurisdiction to hear a petition once leave has been granted. In other words, can the Court revisit the issue of whether leave ought not to have been granted in the first place, and if it is found that such a power exists, and the grant of leave is revisited, what is to become of the petition?

The Power Of The Substantive Panel To Revisit The Grant Of Leave Under Article 4(3) And (4) Of The Federal Constitution

[7] The substantive provision conferring exclusive original jurisdiction to the Federal Court to hear certain limited matters is art 128(1) of the FC . The procedure for it is contained within art 4(3) and (4). For convenience, these provisions are reproduced below:

"Article 128

128. (1) The Federal Court shall, to the exclusion of any other Court, have jurisdiction to determine in accordance with any rules of Court regulating the exercise of such jurisdiction:-

(a) any question whether a law made by Parliament or by the Legislature of a State is invalid on the ground that it makes provision with respect to a matter with respect to which Parliament or, as the case may be, the Legislature of the State has no power to make laws; and

(b) disputes on any other question between States or between the Federation and any State.

Article 4

(3) The validity of any law made by Parliament or the Legislature of any State shall not be questioned on the ground that it makes provision with respec