The court held that Parliament lacks authority to withhold remuneration from a suspended member without express legislation, reinforcing the supremacy of constitutional provisions over parliamentary privileges.

[1] On 12 March 2009, during a debate in the Dewan Rakyat (Dewan), the respondent who is the Member of Parliament for Puchong uttered certain statements alleging that the Deputy Prime Minister, who was and still is the Member of Parliament for Pekan, was implicated in a murder. The respondent also made disparaging remarks, and alleged bias against the Deputy Speaker of the Dewan in ordering him to leave the Dewan. The outcome of that was the prompt removal of the respondent from the Dewan.

[2] On 16 March 2009, Datuk Seri Mohamad Nazri Abdul Aziz, the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (2nd appellant) tabled a motion in the Dewan pursuant to SO 27(3) of the Standing Orders of the Dewan Rakyat, to commit the respondent for contempt committed within the walls of the Dewan, in that by making the accusatory and disparaging remarks which the respondent did against the Deputy Prime Minister and the Deputy Speaker respectively, the respondent had breached the rights and privileges of a member of the Dewan. The motion was debated by the Dewan and the respondent was found guilty of contempt. The Dewan then passed by a resolution (impugned resolution) that the respondent be suspended as a Member of Parliament for a period of 12 months and that he not be paid the prescribed allowances and benefits of a Member of Parliament during the suspension period. This resolution was then administratively confirmed by a letter of the Setiausaha Dewan Rakyat (3rd appellant).

[3] The respondent then applied to the High Court by way of Originating Summons for a declaratory order that the resolution that he be suspended for a period of 12 months without remuneration be declared null and void and that he was entitled to be paid the remuneration under art 64 of the Federal Constitution. The High Court ruled that the resolution suspending the respondent from Parliament for a period of 12 months was non justiciable and this prayer was dismissed. The Court however allowed the prayer relating to the application in relation to the withholding of remuneration during the suspension period. The High Court Judge ruled that in the absence of an express enabling power to do so, the decision to deprive the respondent of the allowances and benefits prescribed by the Members of Parliament (Remuneration) Act 1980 (Act 237), passed pursuant to art 64 of the Federal Constitution was declared to be null and void. The High Court ordered that an account be made of all allowances and benefits, which has been withheld, be paid forthwith with interest at 8% per annum from the date due until full payment.