special courts for rulers

Question 1

introduction

Answer 1

 The Special Court for Rulers was established in 1993;
 Federal Constitution was amended to add Part XV to remove the immunity of the Rulers from legal proceedings made against them in their personal capacity.
 Before the amendment, no legal action can be taken against the Ruler – See Mighell v Sultan of Johore; Karpal Singh v Sultan of Selangor [1988] 1 MLJ 64; Kesultanan Pahang v Sathask Realty [1998]

Question 2

provisin in FC for special courts for rulers

Answer 2

Art 181(2):
“No proceedings whatsoever shall be brought in any court against the Ruler of a State in his personal capacity except in the Special Court established under Part XV.”

Question 3

Art 182

Answer 3

 (2) Any proceedings by or against the YDPA or the Ruler of a State in his personal capacity shall be brought in a Special Court established under Clause (1).
 (3) The Special Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to try all offences committed in the Federation by YDPA or the Ruler of a State and all civil cases by or against the YDPA or the Ruler of a State notwithstanding where the cause of action arose.

 (1) There shall be a court which shall be known as the Special Court and shall consist of the-
► chief justice of the FC – chairman;
► chief judges of the HC;
► 2 other persons who hold office or have held office as judges of the FC or HC appointed by the Conference of Rulers.

 (6) The proceedings in the Special Court shall be decided in accordance with the opinion of the majority of the members and its decision shall be final and conclusive and shall not be challenged or called in question in any court on any ground.

Question 4

art 183

Answer 4

“No action, civil or criminal, shall be instituted against the YDPA or the Ruler of a State in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by him in his personal capacity except with consent of the Attorney General personally.

To ensure that there is a prima facie case against the Rulers.

Question 5

8th schedule FC

Answer 5

 1A. (1) – Where the ruler is charged with an offence under any law in the Special Court…, he shall cease to exercise the functions of the Ruler of the State.
 (2)- During the period when the Ruler ceases, under subsection (1), to exercise the functions of the Ruler of the State, the Regent or a Council of Regency shall be appointed to exercise the functions of the Ruler of the State.

 (3) – Where the Ruler is convicted of an offence in the Special Court and sentenced to imprisonment for more than one day he shall cease to be the Ruler of the State unless he received a free pardon.

Question 6

facts

Answer 6

(1) Royal immunity abolished – YDPA and Rulers can be sued by ordinary citizens and prosecuted by PP in their personal capacity – actions against them in their official capacity are taken against the Government concerned.
(2) Where a Ruler is charged with an offence, he shall cease to function as a Ruler – his roles are taken over by his Regent.
(3) If convicted a Ruler can be imprisoned and there no special prison for Rulers.

Question 7

pp v Tengku Mahmood Iskandar (1973)

Answer 7

Royal families, consorts, regents and other family members never had any immunity from legal proceedings.

Question 8

Faridah Begum v Sultan Haji Ahmad –[1996]

Answer 8

A foreigner has NO right to sue a Sultan!

Answer 9

There was a reference to the FC by the HC pursuant to s. 84 CJA on the constitutional question of whether the Plaintiff was a ‘ruler’ under arts 181-183.

Held:
(1) A regent exercising the functions of the Ruler was not a Ruler for the purpose of art 181(2) and thus, can be sued in the ordinary courts;
(2) The Special Court was established exclusively for Rulers personally in respect of proceedings in their personal capacity;

Question 10

DYTM Tengku Idris Shah Ibni Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah v Dikim Holdings Sdn. Bhd. (2003)

Answer 10

While the suit was pending in the HC, the Plaintiff was proclaimed the Sultan of Selangor. The case was referred again to the FC to resolve the issue, inter alia, whether the HC has jurisdiction to try the case.

Federal Court held:
(1) Since the Plaintiff now is a Ruler, proceedings made by or against him must be brought in the Special Court;
(2) HC ceased to have jurisdiction to try the case notwithstanding the fact that the suit was started before the Plaintiff became a Ruler;
(3) “the question of when the cause of action arose was irrelevant”.
(4) The suit must be commenced afresh in the Special Court as the HC do not have the power to transfer to the case.

Question 11

other case

Answer 11

Dato’ Hari Menon @ Dato’ T Puraharan a/l CP Ramakrishnan (suing as representative of DYMM Tuanku Ja’afar Ibni Almarhum Tuanku Abdul Rahman, Yang Dipertuan Besar Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus) v Texas Encore LLC & Ors [2005] 4 MLJ 506.