Speaker claims defamation over notice of Perak Assembly sitting

IPOH : Perak State Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar today claimed he was subjected to defamation over the instruction to issue a notice for the state assembly to sit on May 7

He said he was shocked over a report in The New Straits Times (NST) newspaper yesterday that he had been informed of the assembly sitting before the notice was issued. Sivakumar had said earlier that the notice was issued without his knowledge and approval.

"I will not allow this. It is another attempt to undermine my image and credibility.

"If the allegation is true, why are the people who issued the statement not bold enough to identify themselves in the daily? Why just say it (the source of the news) is someone associated with the office of the menteri besar?" he said in a statement here.

Sivakumar reiterated that he was not informed before the notice on the assembly sitting was issued by assembly secretary Abdullah Antong Sabri last Friday.

Abdullah Antong Sabri

He said his meeting with Abdullah, as reported in the newspaper, was held after the issuing of the notice by Abdullah without any consultation earlier with him (Sivakumar).

"I was told that a notice had been sent to my office at about 10am. A similar notice had been sent by the assembly secretary to all state assemblymen. I saw the notice at about 1pm.

"I only met Abdullah at about 3pm, after he had returned from Friday prayers," he said.

The NST reported yesterday that "Sivakumar had full knowledge of the issuance of the notice for the May 7 sitting of the assembly" before the notice was issued to all the 59 state assemblymen.

- BERNAMA
Click this link to read more!

Nizar's pleadings with the Sultan

KUALA LUMPUR, - He pleaded, appealed and even cajoled Sultan Azlan Shah to dissolve the Perak state assembly, saying that with the resignation of the three Pakatan Rakyat lawmakers there was deadlock in the House between the coalition he led and Barisan Nasional.

Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin said that at no time during his audience with the Sultan did he ask the monarch to dissolve the assembly and call for fresh elections because he had lost the confidence of the majority of the members of the state assembly.

Nizar cleared this important point in an affidavit which was filed in the High Court yesterday as part of the judicial review application challenging Datuk Seri Zambry Kadir appointment as the Mentri Besar of Perak.

The Perak state legal advisor in his affidavit said that when Nizar appeared before the Sultan on February 4, he asked the Malay Ruler to dissolve the house because he had lost the confidence of the House.

This point is important because it gives some legitimacy to the Sultan's actions in asking Nizar to quit as the Mentri Besar, an act which paved the way for Zambry to be made the chief executive of the state.

But Nizar in his affidavit noted that the state legal advisor was an interested party in the case, having represented and taken instructions from Zambry.

His description of the events on Feb 4 were wrong, said Nizar. Nizar recalled that on Feb 4 he informed the Sultan that three Pakatan Rakyat lawmakers had resigned.

They could not be contacted and seemed to have gone missing.

He then asked the Sultan to dissolve the assembly because it was appropriate to have fresh elections given the deadlock situation in the House with Pakatan Rakyat and BN having equal number of seats.

The Sultan said he would study the matter further and told Nizar that Allah is with those who are patient.

At no point during the audience, did the issue of Nizar losing the confidence of majority of the assembly crop up.

On Feb 5, the Sultan informed Nizar that he was rejecting the request to dissolve the assembly.

Hearing this, Nizar interjected and spoke for 15 minutes, urging the Ruler to allow the people of Perak to exercise their rights and elect their own government.

"When the assembly is dissolved, the rakyat will view the Sultan as someone who is fair and not partisan. They will in turn respect the institution for returning to them their rights to elect the government.
This is also consistent with the constitutional monarchy system and democratic principle here…

"In contrast, if the people were denied their rights, the people may lose respect for the institution and the Sultan…I pointed out that history showed that in countries such as Egypt and Iran the institution of the monarchy was diminished or completely wiped out when decisions not in the interest of people were made.''

To support his case, Nizar also read out a passage from the book "Constitutional Monrachy: Rule of Law and Good Governance .

It said: "Under normal circumstances, it is taken for granted that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong would not withhold his consent to a request for dissolution of Parliament. His role is purely formal.

The book was given to Nizar by Sultan Azlan Shah when he was installed as the MB last year.

As soon as Nizar finished his 15 minute plea, the Sultan looked up at him and declared that he would not dissolve the assembly and urged Nizar to resign.

Meanwhile, in a supporting affidavit, Perak Speaker V Sivakumar said that on Feb 6, he wrote to the Sultan to convene a state assembly sitting so that a vote of confidence could be held.

Till today, he has not received a reply from the palace, forcing him to take steps to protect the name and integrity of the assembly. (TMI)

Click this link to read more!

Fed Court ruled that state speaker has no power to suspend assemblymen

PUTRAJAYA, – The Federal Court has unanimously ruled it has the powers to decide on whether Perak Speaker V Sivakumar’s suspension of the mentri besar and his executive council from the legislature was valid.
Court of Appeals president Tan Sri Alauddin Mohd Shariff, one of the five-member panel, said the preliminary objection, based on a procedural technicality raised by the speaker’s counsel Sulaiman Abdullah, had been rejected.

The case has huge ramifications for the constitutional crisis which has engulfed Perak. The suspension of mentri besar Datuk Zambry Abd Kadir and his six executive councillors would give Pakatan Rakyat a majority in the state assembly and the Barisan Nasional (BN) government could potentially be ousted when the legislature sits again.

Today’s decision by the Federal Court will also be controversial because it appears to affect the legal principle of separation of powers and also constitutional provisions which suggests the legislature governs its own proceedings.

Sulaiman warned the court that this was a “significant step in Malaysian legal history in that the hitherto well-preserved distinction between the legislative and judiciary is being challenged.”

This formed the main body of Sulaiman’s submission today when hearing commenced, as he argued that the court cannot enter into the question of whether the speaker had erred in his decision.

“Similar to matters pertaining to the Syariah court, this court has no jurisdiction. It is up to the assembly to decide on its rights and privileges.”

He explained that the speaker’s actions were not exempt from review but “exempt from review by the courts.”

“It is open to review by a substantive motion in the house,” he said.

Chief Judge of Malaya Datuk Arifin Zakaria then proposed a situation where the speaker has suspended “30 members” of the assembly, implying an entire opposition bench, and there would be no one to move this motion. “So nothing can be done?”

Sulaiman drew a parallel with that of judges of an apex court, that their decisions, no matter how out of order, also could not be questioned.

“But during an election, then the speaker and his party will receive their come-uppance,” he said.

He also added that the mentri besar could also seek dissolution of the assembly if the speaker had acted completely out of order.

However, Arifin still demanded that Sulaiman “show me the power” by which the speaker could suspend members for contempt. Sulaiman cited Standing Orders 89 and 90 of the Perak assembly which he claimed gives the speaker the power to make final decisions on matters of the assembly, subject to a substantive motion being raised.

Intervening after Sulaiman’s submission, Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail argued that, according to the constitution, the courts are made the ultimate interpreters of the constitution and, as such, have a function to perform in this case.

“This does not mean that the judiciary is supreme over the legislature but that the constitution is supreme over both,” he said.

He further argued that with specific regards to suspensions for contempt, other assemblies such as the Parliaments of Malaysia and Singapore had specific provisions for such actions whereas the Perak assembly did not.

He said that while Parliament had legislated laws which gave it powers to punish acts of contempt, the “legislative enactment for Perak provided certain powers but not punishment for contempt” and this should be interpreted as a intentional move to limit the powers of the assembly.

Gani also said that the charge of contempt could not stand as charging Zambry and his six executive councillors for accepting their appointments from the Sultan was in contempt of the ruler’s constitutional prerogatives.

“Accepting the appointments are not legislative privileges and therefore the suspensions are ultra vires and have no effect whatsoever,” Gani claimed.

He also said that the privileges committee, which is chaired by the speaker, had no powers to mete out punishment but is only an investigative body as stated in the assembly’s standing orders.

As such, it then tried to bring its recommendations to the assembly, said Gani, referring to the “tree assembly” on March 3, which was held under a raintree as the PR assemblymen were not allowed into the assembly hall by security forces.

Gani said that the assembly was invalid as the Sultan did not consent to the sitting. Sulaiman had earlier argued that no consent was necessary as the last sitting was postponed until a further date and a fresh proclamation was only needed from the Sultan to call a new session, which is made up of any number of meetings, after a sitting is discontinued, which signals the end of a session.

However, Gani claimed that a new summoning by the Sultan was required at the beginning of each meeting, which is any number of sittings that terminates if the assembly is adjourned for more than 14 days.

He provided evidence showing that even under PR’s one-year rule, the Sultan’s consent was still given for each of the three meetings.

Later, Perak DAP chief Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham, who was senior executive councillor in the PR government, told The Malaysian Insider that this was done at the advice of the assembly secretary, following the convention of Barisan Nasional but that constitutionally, the Sultan’s proclamation was only required at the start of a new session, and not each meeting.

The legal team for the executive council has decided to adopt the AG’s submissions and the apex court will hear Sulaiman’s reply on Thursday before making its final ruling on the matter. (TMI)

Click this link to read more!

Court held that Sivakumar can engage private lawyers

PUTRAJAYA:The Court of Appeal on Friday held that Perak State Legislative Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar can engage private lawyers to represent him in two civil suits brought by Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and six state executive councillors and three independent assemblymen.

Justices Datuk Md. Raus Sharif, Datuk Abdull Hamid Embong and Datuk Ahmad Maarop unanimously held that there was no provision in law to say that the speaker must be represented by Perak legal adviser Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid.

"A speaker is not a state officer or the Government of the state. Sivakumar is at liberty to engage lawyers of his choice," Raus said in his oral decision allowing Sivakumar's appeals to set aside the Ipoh High Court's ruling that only the State Legal Adviser can represent him.

On March 3 and 5, Judicial Commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim refused to allow private attorneys to represent Sivakumar.

Zambry and the six state Exco had brought a suit against Speaker seeking a declaration that the Speaker's decision in suspending and preventing them from attending the assembly's sittings for 18 months (for Zambry) and 12 months (for the rest) is null and void.

The other suit was brought by the three independent lawmakers Jamaluddin Md Radzi, Capt (R) Mohd Osman Jailu and Hee Yit who wanted the court to declare that their Behrang, Changkat Jering and Jelapang seats are not vacant and that they are still the legitimate people's representatives.

This followed the Speaker's announcement last month that they had vacated the seats after Jamaluddin and Osman quit Parti Keadilan Rakyat and Hee left DAP. - Bernama

Click this link to read more!

Is Ridwan Ibrahim was eligible to hear or grant a restraining order against state speaker V Sivakumar?

IPOH— With his term as judicial commissioner ending February 28, the Perak constitutional crisis has taken another twist with the question whether Ridwan Ibrahim was eligible to hear or grant a restraining order against state speaker V Sivakumar yesterday.

The Ipoh-based judicial commissioner was first appointed on March 1, 2007 to a two year term which ended last Saturday. It is not known if his term of office has been extended as the newly-minted Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) has yet to meet.

Unlike judges who have full tenure, judicial commissioners get two-year contracts under Article 122AB of the Federal Constitution and can sit to hear cases in the High Court.

A legal source said the judicial commissioners used to get extensions but now have to apply to the JAC for consideration as high court judges.

"I am not sure about Ridwan's status but the JAC can easily extend his appointment retrospectively like in the past," the source told The Malaysian Insider.

Ridwan's status, unless confirmed, could be another contentious point in the protracted Perak political impasse turned constitutional crisis as Pakatan Rakyat's Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin claims he is still Menteri Besar although the Perak palace has appointed Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir last Feb 5 when three government lawmakers turned independent.

Both Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional have 28 members each in the 59-seat state assembly, making the three independents a decisive force. Lawsuits from both sides have muddied the issue which is now tied up in legal process. Earlier, judicial commissioner Mohamad Ariff Yusof had recused himself in Kuala Lumpur to hear Nizar's suit challenging the validity of Zambry's appointment.

The legal source said the matter could be clarified when the JAC finally meets. "We don't even know where and when they are going to meet, their staffing and other issues. They could meet under a tree," he quipped, referring to the Perak assembly meeting under a rain tree in Ipoh.

Ridwan, who disqualified Sivakumar's private lawyers yesterday in favour of state lawyer Zulkairnan Hassan, issued a restraining order against the Perak speaker from convening meetings “purporting to be meetings of the Perak legislative assembly”, after accepting arguments that the immunity from judicial review stated in the federal constitution was only for proceedings in the state assembly.

The order for an indefinite period of time was granted at 5pm under Section 44 of the Specific Relief Act which grants the court the power to make orders to a public official.

The order came hours after Sivakumar convened a meeting under a raintree 200 metres from the state legislative assembly building that was locked by order of the State Secretary and cordoned off by a phalanx of riot police armed with shields and water cannons.

A hearing date will be set by the court on March 5, which is also the day that the three independents who left Pakatan Rakyat and now support Barisan Nasional, will go to court to quash the speaker’s decision to consider their state assembly seats vacant. (TMI)

Click this link to read more!

Directive to shut down Perak Secretariat's retrieved

IPOH: The State Secretary’s office issued circulars last evening directing staff members to cancel all appointments in the premises today because the entrances to the building would be shut.

However, the circulars were retrieved about an hour after they were pasted on the doors of several offices.

Later when asked if the directives had been withdrawn, State Secretary Datuk Dr Abdul Rahman Hashim said: “My officer informed me that they had been collected back. I cannot comment further on that.”

That development has left a question mark as to whether the “emergency sitting” of the Perak State Assembly, supposed to start here today, would be held.

The “emergency sitting” was called by Pakatan Rakyat Speaker V. Sivakumar. Barisan Nasional Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir has called it “invalid and unlawful”.

Dr Abdul Rahman said he was unaware what would happen today during the “emergency sitting” and would not confirm or deny if the House would be locked.

“In fact, I too did not receive any invitation to attend this emergency sitting.”

The circulars were pasted on the office doors at about 4pm when a reporter managed to get copies of it and passed them on to about 20 other journalists waiting outside Dr Zambry’s office for his press conference.

When one reporter tried to make a photocopy of the circular, some officials of the mentri besar’s office said it was not for publication.

Later, reporters were informed the circulars had been “collected back”.

At the press conference, Dr Zambry warned that anyone who tried to attend the sitting would be deemed as “threatening the safety of the state.”

“As far as I and my exco are concerned, there was no consent given by the Sultan over the convening of this so-called emergency sitting.

“I would like to stress here that without such consent, whatever ‘sitting’ held would be considered invalid and unlawful.”

The press conference, held late in the evening, was attended by most of the Barisan exco members, several Barisan representatives and Barisan-friendly Independents Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu and Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi.

Dr Zambry accused Sivakumar of not acting within his jurisdictional powers by calling for the sitting without royal consent.

“He has used his powers unfairly to achieve his own political agenda and he had ridiculed the proceedings of the House.”

He said he would challenge in court Sivakumar’s decision to call for the emergency sitting of the state assembly “in due course.”

Later, former Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Mohamad Tajol Rosli Ghazali said that should Pakatan go ahead with today’s sitting, it would be unfair towards Barisan.

“It will be 21 (Barisan assemblymen) against 28 (Pakatan assemblymen), so where is the fairness?

“You ask us to go for a fight and then you tie our hands behind our backs. We might as well just stay at home,” he said. (TheStar)

Click this link to read more!