WHEN New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced on March 23 that the country had hit coronavirus alert level 3 and would raise it to alert level 4 in 48 hours, it effectively meant that all but the provision of essential services would shut down.

Chief Justice Helen Winkelmann responded swiftly by asserting that the courts are an essential service. The Rt Honourable CJ said:

“It’s essential that New Zealand courts continue to uphold the rule of law and to ensure that fair trial rights, the right to natural justice and rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act are upheld.”

At home, Iskandar Puteri MP Lim Kit Siang has called for Parliament and the judiciary to be declared “essential services”.

Are the courts and Parliament essential services?

It is humbly submitted that both are more than an essential service. Lest we forget, there are three branches of the government, namely the executive, judiciary and legislature. There is separation of powers between the three branches and separation of powers in a basic structure of the federal constitution.

In simple words, this means that the gazetted regulations that enforce the movement control order (MCO) cannot but lockdown only the non-essential services of the courts and Parliament.

As branches of the government, the courts and Parliament, too, have their own essential and non-essential services, much like the executive.

Which is why the “circuit-breaker” regulations in force in Singapore clearly provide that the regulations do not apply in relation to the government, and that “essential services” mean, among others, any provision of goods or services by the government or any public body in the exercise of its public functions. The government here must mean the executive, courts and legislature.

In short, the MCO should apply equally to the three branches of the government – executive, the courts and Parliament. The essential services of the three branches cannot be “locked down”. As independent institutions duly constituted under the federal constitution, the courts and Parliament should be at liberty to identify their essential services. – May 2, 2020.

* Hafiz Hassan reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.