KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 15 (Bernama) -- The Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) today objected to an application by two men seeking leave for a judicial review to challenge the decision by the Prime Minister, the government and three Cabinet ministers to remove and retarget diesel subsidies in Peninsular Malaysia on June 10, 2024.
Senior federal counsel Mohammad Sallehuddin Md Ali contended that the decision to end the subsidies cannot be challenged through judicial review, as the matter is not governed by any written law.
"The granting or withdrawal of subsidies is not a right provided under the law; rather, it is a form of financial assistance and a policy decision that the court cannot adjudicate," he said during the hearing of the leave application today.
Mohammad Sallehuddin also argued that the court need not examine the issue at all, since it had become academic after diesel prices and subsidy methods were standardised nationwide on July 1 last year.
The application for leave to commence judicial review was filed on Oct 7, 2024, by Azhani Marlan @ Abd Halim, 49, and Mohd Hatta Sanuri, 50.
They named Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, who is also Finance Minister, former Economy Minister Datuk Seri Rafizi Ramli, Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Minister Datuk Armizan Mohd Ali, Transport Minister Anthony Loke and the government as the first to sixth respondents.
The two men are seeking, among other things, a declaration that the defendants' decision on June 9, 2024, to scrap the diesel subsidy and set the retail price at RM3.35 per litre, up from RM2.15, a 56 per cent jump, is null and void in law.
The move took effect on June 10, 2024, in Peninsular Malaysia, with Sabah and Sarawak exempted.
Meanwhile, the applicants’ lawyer Mohaji Selamat argued that the decision is amenable to judicial review because it involves neither national security nor any specific prerogative power that is ordinarily non-justiciable.
"The government's decision on diesel subsidies is subject to the law, including Article 8 of the Federal Constitution and Section 6(2)(g) of the Control of Supplies Act 1961.
"Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution states that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law. So why are people in Peninsular Malaysia denied the subsidy when, at the time, unlimited subsidies were given to Sabah and Sarawak?" he said.
According to Mohaji, the issue should not be dismissed as academic merely because the government is restoring diesel subsidies in Peninsular Malaysia in stages.
He asserted that a judicial review application can still proceed even if the decision being challenged has been withdrawn or changed.
“In our view, the damage or impact arising from that decision, from June 10, 2024, until July 1, 2026, does not disappear simply because the subsidy has been reinstated," he said.
After hearing submissions from both sides, Judge Norliza Othman fixed Nov 16 for the decision on the application for leave to commence judicial review.
-- BERNAMA