IF you say someone has shut the stable door after the horse has bolted, you mean that they’ve made a futile effort to prevent damage being done.  

The Malay equivalent of this is “Sudah terhantuk baru tengadah”.  

That can be said of Bersatu’s amendments to its constitution leading to the removal of six 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, and 10.6 – were added. 

The sub-clauses became the party’s governing law only after the six had supposedly been insubordinate by declaring their support for Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. The horse had 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. 

After considering explanations by the six MPs – and given his power under Article 49A(1), read together with clause (3) – Dewan Rakyat Speaker Johari Abdul may have established that Bersatu denied them their rights under the party’s old laws. 

Hence, it can be argued that Johari’s decision not to vacate the MPs’ seats is in accordance with legal principles. – July 15, 2024.  

* 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.