KUALA LUMPUR: Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (Bersatu) will face an uphill battle if it chooses to challenge the Dewan Rakyat speaker's decision allowing their six former members of parliament (MP) to keep their seats.
PKR's Pasir Gudang MP Hassan Abdul Karim said it would be difficult for them to succeed in their legal challenge because of Article 63(1) of the Federal Constitution.
This provision stipulates that the validity of any proceedings in either Parliament or any committee shall not be questioned in any court.
"But it would not hurt them to try. The court is the last bastion for the people to seek justice."
He said if that failed, the second way was for Bersatu to take it to the streets, as suggested by its youth chief, Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal.
"Malaysia is a democratic country. Article 10 of the Federal Constitution guarantees the people's right to freedom of speech and expression, and the right to peaceful assembly without arms, and notice is given to the police.
"Don't bring weapons and do not gather in prohibited areas."
Hassan said if all rules were adhered to, Bersatu could protest peacefully, with police assistance.
"Do not be afraid. Exercise your rights as citizens of a democratic country," he added.
If both methods failed, Hassan said the third way was to let the people make their choice in the 16th General Election.
He said from a constitutional standpoint, he believed that Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Johari Abdul had erred ('khilaf') in making his decision.
However, he said his views were no longer relevant as it would not make any positive impact in terms of legal processes.
"The speaker's decision made in the Dewan Rakyat sitting, although 'khilaf', cannot be challenged or tried in court.
"This is stated in Article 63(1) of the Federal Constitution that gives special privileges to Parliament.
"Is it game over (for Bersatu)? The answer is yes."
On Wednesday, Bersatu president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin confirmed that the six seats held by its former members would not be vacated despite a notice issued by the party.
He said the decision made by Johari disappointed the party, claiming that the latter acted beyond his jurisdiction by making a twisted interpretation of the Federal Constitution.
The following day, Johari defended his decision as he had studied the matter thoroughly and said he would not change his mind.