Categorised | News

“No authority for speaker to suspend Zambry and six exco” (Updated 7.05pm)

Updated 7.05pm on 11 June 2009

PUTRAJAYA, 11 June 2009: Perak Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and his six state executive councillors cannot be suspended from attending the state legislative assembly for alleged contempt as the offence is not provided for under the Perak State Constitution, the Federal Court said in its written judgment of a decision it reached on 16 April 2009.

Federal Court judge Datuk Seri S Augustine Paul wrote that Article 44 of the Perak State Constitution, read together with the Standing Orders of the legislative assembly and the Legislative Assembly (Privileges) Enactment 1959, did not provide for the offence of contempt and the resultant punishment of suspension from attending sessions of the state legislative
assembly.


Zambry
Therefore,the suspension order of 18 months for Zambry and 12 months for the councillors made by state speaker V Sivakumar was null and void as Sivakumar had no power to do so, he said.

“The power to deal with contempts, which is not provided in the Standing Orders of the legislative assembly, is not something that the speaker can take cognizance of as it requires a law to that effect,” Paul said in his 64-page judgment dated 3 June and made available today.

On 16 April, the five-member bench led by Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Alauddin Mohd Sheriff held that the suspension order by Sivakumar on Zambry and his six exco men was ultra vires the Perak state constitution.

“There must be specific legal authority to take cognizance of and punish for contempt. This is particularly significant where the alleged contempt was committed beyond the walls of the legislative assembly,” Paul said.

Sitting with Alauddin were Paul, Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Arifin Zakaria and Justices Tan Sri Nik Hashim Nik Ab Rahman and Datuk Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin.

Zambry and the six — Zainol Fadzi Paharuddin, Datuk Ramly Zahari, Hamidah Osman, Datuk Saarani Mohamad, Mohd Zahir Abdul Khalid and Dr Mah Hang Soon — filed an originating summons at the Ipoh High Court on 2 March, seeking a declaration that their suspension was null and void.

In the summons, they contended that Sivakumar had, in a letter dated 11 Feb 2009, complained that Zambry was acting illegally by appointing an executive councillor contrary to the supreme law, and that the contempt had embarrassed Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, as the Perak menteri besar, and had prevented his (Nizar’s) exco from performing their duties under the Perak
constitution.


Sivakumar (left) and Nizar
The applicants further contended that in a letter dated 18 Feb, Sivakumar, in exercising his powers as speaker, found them guilty as charged and suspended them from attending the sessions of the state assembly for 18 months for Zambry, and 12 months for the others.

Paul, in his judgment, said: “The suspension against the applicants was done pursuant to Standing Order 72 of the legislative assembly. The summonses against them state that their acts constitute contempt. As contempt has not been specifically prescribed for, the acts cannot come within the ambit of Standing Order 72.

“Standing Order 72 authorises the Committee of Privileges to take cognizance of ‘any matter which appears to affect powers and privileges of the assembly’.

“In order for the ‘matter’ to have such an effect, it must be unlawful or be an infringement of the powers and privileges of the assembly. It is only then that it can be said that it appears to affect the powers and privileges of the assembly,” Paul reasoned.

Zambry and the six assemblypersons were represented by lead counsel Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin, while counsel Sulaiman Abdullah appeared for Sivakumar. — Bernama

Post to Twitter Post to Google Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to StumbleUpon



4 Responses to ““No authority for speaker to suspend Zambry and six exco” (Updated 7.05pm)”

  1. Eric says:

    Augustine Paul should be made a Tun, no less, for his sacrifices towards Umno and BN, er … I meant the nation.

    Let’s see if this case law applies only to BN or to all in Gobind’s case.

    1 Black Malaysia. Democracy First. Elections Now.

  2. Pratamad says:

    Augustine P served the Dr M era and now the Najib regime. He deserves much more than a Tun, no?

  3. ipoh_mali says:

    Zambry, even if the world court rules in favour of you, we, the rakyat of Perak will never favour you. Get it?

    You and BN stink! Daylight robbers!

  4. I just realised that “Tun” is “Nut” backwards … imagine that …

    Anyone read the 64 page court judgment he wrote yet, or are we basing everything on Bernama?

    Reading the excerpt within this article, Sivakumar suspended them for contempt.

    Did Zambry do such a thing?

    Since the definition of contempt is not specified by the Perak state constitution, the it’s up to the Speaker’s judgment, is it not?

    I mean, this is the way it’s being done in Parliament right now.

    And if it’s true that Zambry hiring excos had “embarrassed” Nizar’s excos into not being able to fulfill their duties under Perak’s state constitution, that still isn’t contempt of the assembly, then by all means I think Nizar seriously chose the wrong exco members.

    Looking at the bottom line, the matter at hand is whether or not Zambry hiring excos actually “affects the powers and privileges of the assembly”.

    Sivakumar thought so, Augustine Paul did not.

    On a personal scale though, I’m wondering how Sivakumar is basically saying that Zambry having excos made Nizar’s guys “malu sampai tak boleh buat kerja”.


Most Read (Past 3 Months)

Most Comments (Past 3 Months)

  • None found

Advertisement


<

Advertisement


  • The Nut Graph

 

Switch to our mobile site