• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • RSS
  • Archives
  • Subscribe
The Nut Graph

The Nut Graph

Making Sense of Politics & Pop Culture

  • Projects
    • MP Watch
    • Found in Conversation
  • Current Issues
    • 6 Words
    • Commentary
    • Features
    • Found in Quotation
    • News
  • Columns
  • Interviews
    • Exclusives
    • Found in Malaysia
  • Multimedia
    • Audio
    • Pictures
    • Videos
  • Corrections
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Vault
    • Found in Translation

Right to seek redress in court

By Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan

February 8, 2009

THE present situation in Perak raises many legal and constitutional issues.

It is the view of some constitutional lawyers that the prerogative of the Ruler is “non-justiciable” and cannot be reviewed by the courts. Thus, although we, and others, are of the view that dissolution of the state legislative assembly in Perak would have been the best solution, it is difficult to challenge the prerogative of the Ruler, who exercised that prerogative by ascertaining the views of the majority of the members of the assembly and then deciding who in the “Ruler’s judgment” (under the Perak Constitution) commands their confidence. 

However, in the Datuk Joseph Pairin Kitingan case, such a discretion of the governor (not a Ruler) was held to be justiciable.

We are certainly in unchartered territory.  Different interpretations are always possible.

In that regard, it is the fundamental right of any person to take any matter to the courts for determination and resolution.

We regret to note from reports in the New Straits Times today that there are certain groups who are challenging inter alia Karpal Singh’s intention to file a suit in respect of this matter. In a modern democratic nation like ours, such a challenge is wholly untenable.

Litigants and their lawyers must be free from harassment and any form of intimidation in the exercise of the right to seek redress in a court of law. An advocate and solicitor must be allowed to advance his or her client’s case without fear or favour. 

It is then up to the courts to resolve the various issues, which they must do independently and without regard to political exigencies.  Decisions made with regard to political factors never stand the test of time.

Any intimidation of litigants and their lawyers in the exercise of their rights and duties respectively is an affront to the dignity of the courts and the administration of justice.

We strongly urge that all parties respect this fundamental right to seek redress in our courts. We must never regress to a position where we sacrifice this vital principle for political mileage or self-interest.


Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan
President
Malaysian Bar
8 Feb 2009

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

Related Stories

Filed Under: Letters to the Editor Tagged With: Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan, defections, Karpal Singh, letter to the editor, Malaysian bar, party-hopping, Perak, politics, Sultan Azlan Shah

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. OrangRojak says

    February 8, 2009 at 6:41 pm

    I think you’re in uncharted territory. That it appears to be chartered is the problem.

  2. lee yuen chak says

    February 9, 2009 at 11:52 am

    Datuk Ambiga, you are a learned lawyer. I am amongst the many citizens who are not trained in the matter of the law, particularly constitutional law. Your comments as President of the M’sian Bar, in my opinion, on the current fiasco in Perak had fallen short of a what should be a comprehensive analysis and discussion of the constitutional procedures which should have been followed by the Perak Sultan, using the Pairin case file.

    When emotions are running high and with so much disinformation out there by both sides of the main political fronts, a calm and collected analysis of the “proper” procedures and legitimacy of the assembly should be put forward. Please speak without fear and favour, true to your conscience and let not criticism (which will be thrown at you irrespective of what you say) let you down. I await your comments. Regards. Lee Yuen Chak.

Primary Sidebar

Search

Twitter

My Tweets

Recent Comments

  • Wave33 on The Nut Graph stops publication
  • Adam on The Nut Graph stops publication
  • PSTan on The Nut Graph stops publication
  • PSTan on The Nut Graph stops publication
  • Andre Lai on The Nut Graph stops publication

Recent News

  • The Nut Graph stops publication
  • Nasihat tentang sepupu yang mengganggu perasaan
  • Uncommon Sense with Wong Chin Huat: The Sunni-Shia split and the answer to Muslim unity
  • Why Malaysia needs the national unity bills
  • Challenging government in the digital age: Lessons from Kidex
  • Najib’s failure
  • Babi, anjing, pondan: Jijik orang Islam Malaysia
  • Kidex and the law – What the government’s not telling you
  • Beyond Dyana Sofya
  • Uncommon Sense with Wong Chin Huat: Does Malaysia need hate speech laws?

Tags

Abdullah Ahmad Badawi Anwar Ibrahim Barisan Nasional BN Bukit Selambau by-election dap Deborah Loh Ding Jo-Ann Election Commission elections Found in Malaysia Found in Quotation Gan Pei Ling government high court Hishammuddin Hussein ISA islam Jacqueline Ann Surin Khairy Jamaluddin KW Mak Lim Guan Eng Malaysia MCA Menteri Besar MP Watch Muhyiddin Yassin muslim Najib Razak Pakatan Rakyat Parliament Parti Keadilan Rakyat pas Penang Perak PKR police politics prime minister Selangor Shanon Shah Umno Wong Chin Huat Zedeck Siew

Footer

  • About The Nut Graph
  • Who Are We?
  • Our Contributors
  • Past Contributors
  • Guest Contributors
  • Editorial Policy
  • Comments & Columns
  • Copyright Policy
  • Web Accessibility Policy
  • Privacy Policy
The Nut Graph

© 2023 The Nut Graph