JULY 14 — If you say that someone has closed or shut the stable door after the horse has bolted, you mean that they have tried to prevent something happening but they have done so too late to prevent damage being done.
The Malay equivalent, according to Amir Muslim, is “Sudah terhantuk baru tengadah”. (Peribahasa dan ungkapan Inggeris-Melayu, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka 2009)
That’s what can be said of Bersatu’s amendments of its constitution leading to the removal of the six Members of Parliament (MPs) by the party.
Bersatu wanted them to lose their parliamentary seats but expelling them would not result in fresh elections under Article 49A(2)(c) of the Federal Constitution.
So Bersatu amended its constitution where three sub-clauses (Articles 10.4, 10.5, 10.6) were added.
The sub-clauses therefore became the party’s governing law only after the six declared their support for Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. The horses had already bolted, so to speak.
Generally, amendments to the law do not have retrospective effect. A law is retrospective if it takes away or impairs a vested right acquired under existing laws or creates a new obligation or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in regard to events already past.
Did Bersatu take away or impair its six MPs’ vested rights acquired under the party’s constitution before the amendments?
Given his power under Article 49A(1), read together with clause (3), the Speaker may well have established so, after having considered the explanation by the six in their letters to the Speaker. According to reports, the six had submitted letters to the Speaker to explain their position.
It is therefore arguable that the Speaker’s decision is in accordance with legal principles.
The horses had bolted before the stable door was shut.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
