Malaysia: Kedah to pursue Federal Court appeal over gambling license ruling

Kedah will seek to overturn a recent Court of Appeal ruling by elevating its challenge to the Federal Court, following the dismissal of its appeal against a directive halting the renewal of gambling and lottery premises licenses. The move was confirmed by Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor during an event in Sik, according to Malay Mail.

Sanusi said the state government's position remains unchanged, stressing that the policy reflects the mandate given by voters who elected the administration on a platform grounded in specific values. He said Kedah intends to defend its stance fully before the Federal Court, calling the appellate decision disappointing.

The Court of Appeal ruling on December 12 upheld the High Court's earlier finding that the state's ban on renewing gambling licenses was unconstitutional. The 2-1 majority decision concluded that gambling and lottery matters fall under the Finance Ministry's authority, as licensing and oversight for agents and operators sit at the Federal level. Judges Datuk Dr Lim Hock Leng and Datuk Faizah Jamaludin dismissed Kedah's appeal, while Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Datuk Azizah Nawawi issued a dissenting opinion.

Sanusi maintained that the state acted within its lawful powers, arguing that Kedah is entitled to adopt policies limiting gambling activities. He said the approach aligns with similar restrictions in Kelantan and Terengganu. The legal challenge, he added, originated from 12 gambling operators, including two based in Kedah and others operating from outside the state.

He also expressed concern that the ruling raises broader questions about the practical implementation of Islamic values in policymaking, despite Islam's status as the Federal religion under Article 3 of the Constitution. According to him, certain principles cannot be fully applied within the current legal framework.

Sanusi further questioned the interpretation of Section 9 of the Local Government Act 1976, arguing that the authority of the state government to direct local councils was not sufficiently considered in the ruling.