Bar Council demands resignations of Home Minister, IGP

The Malaysian Bar Council has demanded that Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein and the Inspector-General of Police Musa Hasan resign immediately to take responsibility for arresting five lawyers who were trying to offer legal aid to a group of people detained for participating in a candlelight vigil.At an extraordinary general meeting, some 1,400 lawyers also voted to file a civil suit against the government, the IGP and the Brickfield police chief for the high-handed arrests.

They also plan to submit a memorandum to Prime Minister Najib Razak, Chief Justice Zaki Azmi and the Human Rights Commission to complain of the abuse of power by the police.

Last week, lawyers Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, Syuhaini Safwan, Puspawati Rosman, Ravinder Singh and Murnie Hidayah Anuar from the KL Legal Aid Centre were arrested for alleged illegal assembly at the Brickfield police station.

They had gone there to offer legal assistance to a group of pro-democracy activists, who were holding a candlelight vigil to protest the arrest of their colleague Wong Chin Huat. The five lawyers were released a day later on May 8.

“By their action, the police personnel in question have demonstrated utter disrespect and blatant disregard for the criminal justice system that they are duty-bound to uphold and protect,” Bar Council president Ragunath Kesavan had said in a statement out last week.

“They have violated the specific provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code guaranteeing access to lawyers. Although there is an exception to this provision, it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be turned into a right to arrest lawyers who are waiting to render legal representation to their clients.

“The police action makes an absolute mockery of the constitutional right to legal representation and is a travesty of justice. “ (SK)

Click this link to read more!

Najib and Khairy’s unconvincing Perak script — The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR— What do Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and Khairy Jamaluddin have in common?

Well apart from sharing an image problem in pockets across the country, they both believe that if you stick to a porous script and repeat it often enough, you still can turn over doubters.

This is clear from the justification both of them used in defence of the power grab in Perak. Decrying the double standards being employed by the Opposition and the alternative media, they noted that it was Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim who started the cross over craze by predicting a mass exodus from the Barisan Nasional and the collapse of the Federal Government on September 16.

All the BN did was execute better and bring that plan to fruition in Perak.

Speaking to reporters in Manado, Najib said: “Don’t forget that on September 16, who had wanted to steal 21 of our members of parliament. But when he failed, and we succeeded in Perak, we were then said to be undemocratic. We have been accused of seizing power.

“It was the Opposition who first tried to seize power but without success…we didn’t start it.’’

Speaking to reporters after attending an Umno Youth meeting, Khairy called Anwar a hypocrite for courting defections last year but suddenly favouring going to the polls after the defection of three Pakatan Rakyat lawmakers.

It is not a coincidence that both reached for the same justification.

It is part of the Perak 101 information package being distributed to party members. Umno officials feel that they have remained too silent in the psychological warfare being waged by Pakatan Rakyat over the Perak crisis, and believe that they need to carpet bomb Malaysia with their version of events to neutralise the poisonous mood on the ground. Apart from the cliché of two wrongs do not make a right, there is a problem with this “Anwar-did-this-so-why-can’t-we-also” defence.

It conveniently forgets that not everyone in the Opposition embraced Anwar’s crossover plan, with several senior DAP and PAS politicians openly calling it undemocratic and unconstitutional.

Also, Anwar was lampooned and ridiculed by bloggers and writers for his hot air trick after September 16 came and went. In short, it is incorrect to say that Anwar was given the bunga mangga treatment by all Malaysians when he talked about his impossible dream.

If there was no hoopla surrounding his great cross over plan it was because he has been known to indulge in hyperbole before.

Many Malaysians view the Perak power grab as unconstitutional and undemocratic because they BELIEVE that:

• Sultan Azlan Shah acted incorrectly and overstepped his powers when he refused to dissolve the state assembly and call for elections or even convene a state assembly to test the Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin’s support in the House. Instead he asked Nizar to step down.

High Court judge Abdul Aziz Ab Rahim confirmed the gut feel of Malaysians when he declared that Nizar was the rightful mentri besar and could only have been removed through a motion of no-confidence in the House.

Najib today put a different spin on the Sultan’s action, saying that the Ruler followed the same principle in appointing Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir as MB as he did after Election 2008 when he appointed Nizar to the position. The latter had the majority support after March 2008 and Zambry had the support of the majority after the defection.

Err, that picture he’sketched is incomplete.

Yes, Nizar was appointed MB because Pakatan Rakyat had 31 state assemblymen against the 28 of BN.

As the High Court judge noted when Nizar sought the dissolution of the assembly, it was not because he had lost the confidence of the majority but because there was a possible deadlock in the House after the disappearance of Messrs Osman, Jamaluddin and Hee.

So Sultan Azlan Shah should not have played kingmaker and asked Nizar to step down.

• Institutions of the country namely the monarchy, judiciary and the police are incapable of acting as honest brokers in the Perak crisis.

The doctrine of the separation of powers upheld on five occasions by the courts here and in Commonwealth countries and defended by arguably one of Malaysia’s best legal brains (the late Eusoffe Abdoolcader) was tossed out by the Federal Court when it ruled that it was the task of the Election Commission to declare a casual vacancy in the assembly.

Till today, the apex court has not supported its decision with the grounds of judgment. Why?

See the problem with the justification raised by Najib and Khairy is this: it discounts what Malaysians have seen, read and heard since the epochal election in March 2008.

The justification will only be effective if Malaysians exist in a vacuum.

Attempts to liken what Messrs Hee, Osman and Jamaluddin did to Winston Churchill’s decision to change political parties would have worked if Malaysians are as cut off from the rest of the world as North Koreans.

But we are not.

The Internet tells us that Churchill crossed over for ideological purposes, and suffered a demotion for it.

The Internet also tells us that in September 2008, Khairy dared the Pakatan Rakyat government to sack Osman and Jamaluddin after both of them were charged with corruption.

Today, he is quite happy to call them colleagues.

“Ultimately it is a question of principles, consistency and standards,” expounded the youth wing chief yesterday as he hammered away at Pakatan Rakyat.

Yes it is. (TMI)

Click this link to read more!

Pakatan rubbishes Dr M’s call for assembly to vote out Nizar

Pakatan Rakyat leaders have rubbished a recommendation by ex-premier Mahathir Mohamad to call for a state assembly sitting to vote out PAS leader Nizar Jamaluddin as Menteri Besar.

“He should be more responsible in what he says,” Gopeng MP Lee Boon Chye told Suara Keadilan. “The High Court has ruled that Nizar is the rightful Menteri Besar. This means that all decisions made by Zambry with effect from Feb 6 onwards are illegal, including the May 7 sitting.

“If Umno were to call for a sitting now, they would have to go through the proper Speaker, which is still Sivakumar. There are also 10 assemblymen, one of whom is Zambry, who are still suspended by the House committee of special privileges.”

Knowing that his protege, Prime Minister Najib Razak, may suffer stinging losses if fresh election were to be held in northwestern Perak state, Mahathir had scorned the notion of going back to the people.

Mahathir, who himself was investigated for judge-rigging, also advised against using the courts to seek a solution. He referred to the public uproar over a recent string of controversial rulings in relation to the Perak crisis. Malaysian courts are notorious for succumbing to political pressure.

Instead, the former Umno strongman urged his party to call for another assembly sitting to force through a no-confidence motion to knock out the immensely popular Nizar.

On May 7, Umno assemblymen convened an explosive assembly sitting where after failing to get their way, they used physical force to eject the Speaker V Sivakumar from the legislative hall. Media coverage of the event, which they tried to bar, captured on film the wild and lawless methods used to suppress their rivals from the Pakatan.

“The outcome is a foregone conclusion. So why should we have fresh elections ?“ Mahathir said, adding that it was also costly to hold fresh polls.

Costly? Let the people have the full figures, then see what they say!

Both Mahathir and Najib have been citing unnecessary costs as a main reason why Malaysians should not demand clean and fair election.

Yet political watchers point it would cost Perak and indeed the rest of the nation much more not to hold fresh polls immediately. They also point to the huge amounts already spent by Najib, when he engineered the coup d’etat that toppled the Pakatan administration in Perak.

With the consent of the Sultan, Najib had installed Umno leader Zambry Kadir as chief minister to replace Nizar. And to increase the 28 seats held by his Umno-BN coalition, he persuaded three former Pakatan assemblymen to defect.

“I think everyone in Perak has heard the story of how RM25 million was paid to one of the assemblymen and RM10 million each to the other two. This alone comes up to RM45 million and we are still wondering, was there any other sums paid to other parties?,” said a political watcher following the case.

“We really should put it to Malaysians now. Let them decide which is more costly. And whether it is justified.”

Who really has the numbers?

In March, the House committee of special privileges had barred Zambry, six of his executive councillors and three former former Pakatan assemblymen - Hee Yit Foong, Mohd Osman Jailu and Jamaluddin Radzi - from legislative sittings for between 12 and 18 months.

In April, the Federal Court in two highly controversial decisions ruled that Sivakumar did not have the power to suspend the 10 of them.

But as the Pakatan has repeatedly announced - and which the Umno-BN media has kept suppressing - the suspension did not come from Sivakumar, but from the House. As such, both court declarations were wrong in their facts and could not be applied, they explained.

This would leave the Pakatan with 28 seats over the Umno-BN’s 21 in the 59-seat assembly.

“It is the BN press that keeps repeating it is the Umno that has the numbers. What numbers? Siva was acting in his capacity as head of the committee and Dewan and the suspension was issued by the House. It was the Umno lawyers who bungled. This is the plain and simple fact,” said Boon Chye.

Judge Ramly Mohd Ali and his one-man panel decision

All eyes are now on Monday’s court hearing, where Nizar has filed a suit to set aside a stay of execution granted to Zambry by Court of Appeal judge Ramly Mohd Ali, who sat as a one-man panel instead of as part of a traditional three-member bench.

Ramly’s decision - which reeked of bias towards the Umno - has been slammed left, right and centre by his own legal fraternity, who condemned both the federal government and Chief Justice Zaki Azmi, who himself is an Umno leader, for tarnishing the judiciary’s image.

Said Boon Chye: “We can only hope the court will be more independent and deliver justice. Nizar was always MB as the High Court has already declared. This means Zambry was an illegal usurper from Feb 6 onwards. How then can Zambry apply and worst still, get a stay? On what basis?

“Zambry was never MB for a single day. How can he just walk in and demand to be made MB, which is what the stay has effectively done - made Zambry the MB!

“Just as importantly, Malaysians must ask, on what basis did the Court of Appeal judge Ramly allow this? He must be accountable as our entire system of justice must be accountable. Nobody should be let off the hook.” (SK)

So, what does the 'stay of execution' order mean when the Court did not fix the date for hearing of Zambry's appeal over yesterday's High Court ruling?

Or rather, what doesn't the court order mean in terms of implications?

• It doesn't mean that the Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court's ruling yesterday that Nizar is, and was, the rightful MB at all material time.
  
• It doesn't mean that Nizar has exhausted his options, including his right to appeal to a three-man bench of the Court of Appeal to set aside this court’s stay order.
  
• It doesn't mean that the Sultan cannot consent to Nizar's request to dissolve the state assembly to call for fresh state-wide election.
  
• It doesn't mean that the decision of the Court of Appeal is final recourse for Nizar and/or Zambry. The Federal Court awaits.

I had explained about some of the legal innuendos in the 4.30pm blog entry yesterday.

On the other hand, the decision made by the Court of Appeal may create another miscarriage of natural justice:

1. The stay order will allow the “person found by the High Court to be the usurper" of authority to continue his office.
   
2. The stay order will enable Zambry to initiate a motion of no-confidence against Nizar and the court can later say the case is academic as Nizar is no longer mentri besar. (JO)
   

Click this link to read more!