KUALA LUMPUR: Seeking legal redress might be Bersatu's last hope in the matter of its six former lawmakers who had thrown their support behind the prime minister.
International Islamic University Malaysia associate professor Dr Lau Zhe Wei said it will up to the court to decide if the party has any case against these 'rebels'.
Lau said even if the courts decide in favour of Bersatu, they may not have much power to do anything if Johari ignores the decision because by law, the speaker has power to decide on matters in the Dewan Rakyat.
"Unless you manage to get the court to instruct the speaker to overturn his decision, but then, that will result in a constitutional crisis due to separation of powers", Lau said when contacted by the New Straits Times.
Separation of powers is a principle practiced in democracies whereby the authority and responsibility of one branch of the government should be separated from the other.
Such a decision may also be influenced by Section 18c of the Societies Act, which apparently removes a court's power over decisions made by a political party, said Lau.
He said in 1990, Section 18c of the act had been amendment during the tenure of then prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad following the constitutional crisis two years before that which had stemmed from the results in the Umno party election.
However, Lau points out that, whatever the act entails, the Federal Constitution is supreme.
On July 10, Bersatu president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said that the party had received a letter from Dewan Rakyat speaker Tan Sri Johari Abdul notifying that the seats held by the six MPs will not be vacated.
The six MPs were revoked of their membership in Bersatu after declaring support for prime minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim last year.
On June 20, Bersatu had submitted notices to the Dewan Rakyat Speaker's office on the status of these six MPs, whose memberships have been revoked by the party.
Yesterday, Selangor Bersatu chief Datuk Seri Mohamed Azmin Ali said
Bersatu will take legal action against its former elected representatives who declared support for the prime minister.
Lau said the way the anti-party hopping sections of the Federal Constitution is read, the crux of the issue is whether the parliamentarians 'ceased' to be party members or if they were 'sacked'.
"Bersatu argues that the MPs were not sacked but, after they failing to adhere to the party's leadership, they are considered to be no longer interested in the party and have 'resigned'.
"However, the MPs argue that that they are interested in the party and they are sacked," he said.
According to the Federal Constitution, if the MPs left the party, their seats are vacated. If the MPs are sacked, their seats are not vacated.
"Now, Bersatu is focusing on challenging the interpretation of the speaker and whether he is right to interpret the law. They cannot challenge his power.
"In a Westminster system, a speaker has absolute power in certain issues and their decision is final. The only way is to review whether the decision is justifiable or not in the courts," Lau said.