Lawyer Ramkarpal Singh, who is representing Anwar, said his client filed eight questions of law last week to obtain leave from the apex court for the merit of the complaint to be heard.

“The Federal Court registry has fixed case management for Jan 26,” he told FMT.

Applicants must satisfy the court by framing novel legal and constitutional questions that are of public importance and raised for the first time as required under Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act.

Meanwhile, lawyer Christopher Leong, appearing for MPs Hassan Karim (Pasir Gudang), Salahuddin Ayub (Pulai) and Johari Abdul (Sungai Petani) and Tebing Tinggi (Perak) assemblyman Abdul Aziz Bari, said the four have also filed their leave applications last week.

All have submitted two common legal questions.

On Nov 24, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of the five, stating that the court was not “clothed with the jurisdiction” to entertain the judicial review applications even if leave was granted to them.

“It will be an exercise in futility as the court is barred under Article 150 (8) of the Federal Constitution from questioning the King’s decision to proclaim the Emergency and the ordinances,” said Has Zanah Mehat, who headed a three-member bench.

She said Articles 150(8) and (9) touched on the King’s power to proclaim a state of emergency and promulgate ordinances, and Parliament had excluded judicial review applications on such matters.

“This has shut the door on the courts to hear any challenge on the Emergency and ordinances,” she said, adding that a constitutional amendment in 1981 to insert Clause 8 was valid.

Has Zanah said the wording in Clause 8 was clear to insulate the whole process of judicial scrutiny on any grounds.

Anwar, who is also the Port Dickson MP, and Hassan filed separate applications in the Kuala Lumpur and Johor Bahru High Courts.

Salahuddin, Johari and Aziz filed a joint application in Kuala Lumpur.

They said the advice given to the King by then prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin and his Cabinet was unlawful and subject to legal challenge.

Anwar’s complaint was that Muhyiddin’s administration could have relied on the movement control order and the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act to combat the Covid-19 pandemic instead of resorting to emergency ordinances.

The rest also challenged the constitutionality of the emergency proclamation and suspension of Parliament and the state legislative assemblies.