This follows the decision of a three-member bench led by Balia Yusof Wahi who allowed her application based on three questions of law.
Balia said Maria, now the Petaling Jaya MP, had crossed the threshold of Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act as the questions posed were of public importance and were raised for the first time.
The questions are whether Section 3 (2) of the Immigration Act empowers the director-general with unfettered discretion such that he can impose a travel ban that impinges on the democratic rights of citizens, including the right to criticise the government; whether Section 59, which touches on the right to be heard, is valid and constitutional; and whether Section 59A, which removes the right of parties to seek legal remedy, is constitutional in the light of two recent Federal Court rulings.
Lawyer Gurdial Singh Nijar, who represented Maria, said the leave application would enable the Federal Court to revisit previous rulings giving the director-general alone the authority to stop citizens from travelling abroad.
“Although the Court of Appeal last year ruled the case as academic, Maria’s appeal now is of public interest,” he said.
Federal counsel Shamsul Bolhssan said the leave application should be dismissed as the travel ban on Maria had been lifted on May 17, 2016.
On May 18, 2017, the High Court in Kuala Lumpur ruled that an amendment to the Immigration Act did not allow the courts to hear complaints from citizens who were barred from travelling overseas.
Justice Nik Hasmat Nik Mohamad said as such, she could not provide the remedy sought by Maria.
“The ouster clause in Section 59A of the Immigration Act prevents aggrieved citizens the right to judicial review,” the judge said in dismissing the suit brought by Maria.
She said Section 59 of the legislation further allowed the respondents – the home minister and the Immigration Department director-general – the right not to give reasons why such a ban was being imposed, except for procedural non-compliance.
Maria claimed that she was informed of her travel ban just shortly before she was to board a flight to South Korea on May 15, 2016, at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport.
She applied to quash the decision made by the respondents to blacklist her from travelling abroad. She also sought a declaration that the respondents did not have the power to reach the decision and had, therefore, acted in excess of their jurisdiction.