Art 145(6) is a saving provision & not Cecil Sheridan's guarantee of tenure as Apandi seems to believe

by Ganesh Sahathevan

It has been reported that the newly appointed Attorney General of Malaysia, Tan Sri Apandi Ali , has said with regards the dismissal of his predecessor Tan Sri Ghani Patail:

"Under the existing Clause (5) of Article 145, the Attorney-General holds office during the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong," - See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/ganis-removal-was-constitutional-says-new-a-g#sthash.naNIQs3G.dpuf

"Under the existing Clause (5) of Article 145, the Attorney-General holds office during the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Clause (6) of Article 145 of the Federal Constitution does not apply as it is a savings provision which only applied to the incumbent Attorney-General at the material time when the amended Article 145 came into force. "This is clearly stated in Clause (6) of Article 145. The Attorney-General at the time was Cecil M. Sheridan who served as Attorney-General from 1959 to 1963."

While Englishman  are known to be  eccentric  , it does seem  a bit over the top even for them  to have inserted in the founding constitution of a country  provision to guarantee the  tenure of any one man. It is therefore more likely than not that  Clause (6) of Article 145  was drafted so as to ensure that not merely  Sheridan ,but all  his successors,  enjoyed the same degree of independence that he did. In fact, Clause (5) of Article 145  states :


(5) Subject to Clause (6), the Attorney General shall hold office during the
pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and may at any time resign his office and,
unless he is a member of the Cabinet, shall receive such remuneration as the Yang
di-Pertuan Agong may determine.

That Clause (5) should forever be read subject to Clause (6) when Clause (6) was intended to be a one-off, applicable to just one man,

seem incongruous with the vary nature of the Constitution , ie a document that is meant to exist in perpetuity as the country's primary or seminal source of law.

It does seem as  if  Patail's removal or dismissal (Apandi confirms this) is unlawful.The consequences are going to be interesting.

END