THE Federal Court will hear an appeal by former minister Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman and three others seeking to reinstate a judicial review challenge against the government’s decision to withdraw RM730,300 in allocated funds for the Muar parliamentary constituency.
A three-judge panel led by Datuk Nordin Hassan unanimously granted leave for the appeal to proceed after determining that three legal questions raised by Syed Saddiq met the threshold under Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act.
The panel also comprised Datuk Lee Swee Seng and Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah.
The court’s decision followed submissions from Syed Saddiq’s counsel, Lim Wei Jiet, and Senior Federal Counsel Nurhafizza Azizan.
A date for the full hearing of arguments on the legal questions will be fixed later.
One of the key issues raised is whether a government decision to withdraw or deny constituency allocations to a Member of Parliament can be challenged through judicial review on grounds that it violates the constitutional right to equality under Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution, breaches the doctrine of separation of powers or was made in mala fide, or bad faith.
Lim told the court that RM4 million had initially been allocated to the Muar constituency, with a significant portion of the funds already spent before the allocation was frozen.
“However, as soon as the first applicant (Syed Saddiq) announced that he had left the federal government, the allocation was frozen.
“This is not a situation where the federal government has discretion to determine how much allocation should be given to a parliamentary constituency.
“The allocation had already been granted, and then withdrawn solely because the first applicant’s political allegiance changed,” he said.
Lim added that funds which had already been disbursed and earmarked for specific projects within the MyKHAS system were also halted, affecting other applicants who are voters in the constituency.
They include Najib Abu Nawar, Mohd Bakirudin Abdullah and Muhamad Fadzly Bisri, who represent schools and prayer halls in the area.
He argued that there were elements of mala fide involved, noting that Article 8 of the Federal Constitution concerning equality may have been violated, as other government-aligned Members of Parliament continued to receive annual allocations of RM4 million while his client had been denied such funding since 2024.
According to Lim, the issue of unequal distribution of constituency allocations has become a matter of public interest and widespread debate.
“The Federal Court must clarify the law on whether this matter is justiciable or not. If it is not justiciable, then the first applicant will have to find other ways to obtain the allocation.
“He has already attempted to do so through Parliament and discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister,” he said.
Nurhafizza, however, argued that the legal questions raised by Syed Saddiq did not meet the threshold required under Section 96.
“It is not an important question and does not benefit the public interest. In fact, the questions raised only benefit the applicants’ case,” she said.
Lim disagreed with the assertion.
“He represents a large community. How can it be said that there is no public interest? It is not for one individual alone but for the benefit of the people,” he said.
Responding to that argument, Nurhafizza maintained that the issues raised were fundamentally policy matters.
In October last year, the Court of Appeal dismissed Syed Saddiq’s appeal against a High Court decision on 24 December 2024, which rejected his application for leave to pursue a judicial review against the government’s decision to halt allocations to the Muar parliamentary constituency. – March 10, 2026
