KUCHING: The landmark Federal Court decision that government decisions protected from judicial review by an "ouster clause" can be challenged legally will not affect Sabah and Sarawak’s autonomy under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).

       "This has nothing to do with MA63. The target is not the autonomy of Sarawak and Sabah but the executive's decisions which cannot be challenged in court," said Datuk Seri Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar.

       The Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Parliament and Law) said the apex court ruled on April 25 that ouster clauses – which prevent decisions by the executive from being challenged in court – were unconstitutional in allowing a habeas corpus appeal by man detained under the Prevention of Crime Act (Poca) for alleged involvement in organised crime.

       "The ouster clause is a clause in law that sets aside the court's power to review certain decisions by the executive.

       "The Federal Court has now ruled that these decisions can be challenged in court," the Santubong MP told reporters at a Hari Raya open house for his constituents here on Wednesday (May 4).

       Wan Junaidi said he would meet the Attorney General on May 9 to discuss the Federal Court's decision as it had wide-ranging implications.

       He said at least 60 laws in Malaysia had ouster clauses which could possibly be challenged in court following the ruling.

       "This means the executive has no absolute power in these matters. For example, if the Sarawak state government decides not to allow certain persons from Peninsular Malaysia to enter Sarawak and that person can challenge the decision in court, then the state government's power in this matter is no longer absolute," he said.

       In its ruling, the Federal Court's five-member bench led by Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat said Poca's Sections 4 and 15B intruded into the judicial domain and violated the doctrine of separation of powers.

       The court unanimously found both sections unconstitutional and struck them down.

       Section 4 covers the procedures for magistrates to grant remand orders to the police while Section 15B, which is an ouster clause, prevents judicial review of the grounds of detention.

       Tengku Maimum said legal powers must have legal limits and it was for the courts to determine whether those limits were in accordance with the law.

       "If the courts are not permitted to decide the perimeters of those powers due to ouster clauses, it will be tantamount to an incursion into judicial power and is therefore violative of separation of powers and the rule of law, as espoused in Article 4(1) of the constitution," she was reported as saying.