PUTRAJAYA: A reporter from an opposition-owned newspaper touched a raw nerve with the Attorney-General (AG) when he asked whether today's Federal Court decision signaled a return of monarchy in Perak.

"How can you make such a statement?" said Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, lashing out at the reporter during his press conference at the Palace of Justice.

"Have you read your constitution carefully? You are a disgrace, asking that question," he chided the Harakah Daily reporter.

"It is not right. I think it’s wrong. Everybody has a place — the Judiciary, the Executive, the Sultans; everybody has. What we are known as is a constitutional monarchy system," he added.

The reporter had asked the AG whether the decision would lead to absolute monarchy in Perak.

Earlier, Abdul Gani told reporters today's Federal Court judgment was a very clear one and had sound reasoning.

"There is no doubt about that. This reaffirms that Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir is the rightful menteri besar.

"What the judges said is that anyone who has the majority can be appointed menteri besar but must prove it," he added.

The Federal Court unanimously ruled in favour of Zambry in the MB versus MB case and upheld the Court of Appeal decision on May 22, 2009.

The five-man panel of judges comprising Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Arifin Zakaria and Justices Datuk Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin, Datuk Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yusoff and Datuk Abdull Hamid Embong unanimously ruled that there was no requirement in the Perak Constitution for a vote of no-confidence to be taken in the state assembly.

Meanwhile, Umno lawyer Datuk Mohd Hafarizam Harun said the court decision was in line with the laws of the country.

"Barisan Nasional also sees the result as a form of finality to what has been happening over the past year," he explained.

"The Federal Court has also given some finality to the argument that the Stephen Kalong Ningkan ruling should be upheld. Instead, the court has upheld the Datuk Amir Kahar case."

Hafarizam also believes that a judicial review of the Federal Court decision would be very difficult as review under Rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court to challenge the constitutional points is not easy.

"As far as I know, there are only 11 reported cases whereby the Federal Court has reviewed its decision," he said.