KUALA LUMPUR (Jan 21): Five opposition members of Parliament from Perikatan Nasional (PN) have hauled Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, the attorney general and the government to court over the validity of the Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (ART) between Malaysia and the United States, arguing it was done without the proper authorisation of Parliament.

In an Originating Summons filed in the Kuala Lumpur High Court — and sighted by The Edge — on Monday (Jan 19) by the MPs’ solicitors from Messrs Karthig Shan, the five MPs are seeking a declaration that Anwar, as prime minister, “had no constitutional authority to bind the Federation to the Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (ART) by signature or otherwise” without complying with “the constitutionally required participation, consultation, authorisation, and/or assent of His Majesty Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Their Royal Highnesses the Malay Rulers/ Conference of Rulers, and Parliament”.

The plaintiffs — Datuk Rosol Wahid (PN-Hulu Terengganu), Fathul Huzir Ayob (PN-Gerik), Datuk Awang Hashim (PN-Pendang), Datuk Mas Ermiyati Samsudin (PN-Masjid Tanah) and Datuk Abdul Khalib Abdullah (PN-Rompin) — say they are bringing the action “in the public interest and in discharge of their constitutional duty to uphold the rule of law and the supremacy of the Federal Constitution”.

According to the court papers, on Oct 26, 2025, the prime minister “executed and/or purported to conclude” the ART with the President of the United States Donald Trump, thereby “purporting to bind the Federation on the international plane without first complying with the constitutional requirements that must be satisfied before the Federation may lawfully be bound by contract”.

The MPs describe the ART as “an international agreement with material implications for the Federation’s rights and obligations”, adding that its execution and intended implementation “raise serious, substantive issues as to constitutional capacity, authority and procedures not adhered to by the defendants before binding the Federation into an agreement”.

They state that, to their knowledge, the agreement “was not tabled before, debated in, or approved by Parliament”, and that “no legislative measures have been identified… as having been enacted to give domestic legal effect” to the ART.

The plaintiffs contend that the Anwar, acting alone or upon advice of the AG and the government, “had no constitutional authority to unilaterally commit the Federation” to the agreement, and that “any reliance upon executive power to perfect the agreement unilaterally is unconstitutional and misconceived in law”.

The MPs alleged that Anwar had misrepresented to Parliament and the Malaysian public that constitutional requirements were satisfied and nothing in the agreement infringes the Federal Constitution.

A key concern raised is Article 7.2 of the ART, which provides for entry into force upon exchange of written notifications certifying completion of “applicable legal procedures”. The MPs warned of “a real and present risk that such certification may be issued by the defendants unilaterally or relied upon notwithstanding the unresolved constitutional defects”.

Among the reliefs sought are declarations that any such notification is “unconstitutional, and of no legal effect”, and, if already issued, an order requiring the government to withdraw it and notify the United States that “the Federation’s applicable legal procedures have not been completed and that the agreement…is disputed as unconstitutional and of no domestic legal effect”.