jump to navigation

UMNO bohong, Zambry dan 6 ADUN masih TIDAK boleh hadir sidang DUN Perak – Malaysiakini April 18, 2009

Posted by nikmj in General, harakahdaily, malaysiakini, National, news, Politics.
Tags: , , , , , ,
trackback

Saya sedar ramai yang ingin tahu kesan keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan pada 16 April lalu yang memutuskan bahawa keputusan V.Sivakumar, Speaker Perak menggantung dan melarang Zambry dan enam Exconya hadir di Dun Perak selama 18 bulan dan 12 bulan adalah terbatal dan tak sah.

Ramai yang bertanya saya adakah keputusan tersebut bermakna Zambry dan enam exconya kini boleh menghadiri sidang Dun Perak?

Jika kita melihat kenyataan peguam Umno dan laporan akhbar pro-Umno seperti Utusan Malaysia (17.4.2009) mereka dengan tidak bertanggungjawab menyatakan bahawa Zambry dan enam exconya kini dibenarkan menghadiri sidang Dun Perak yang mungkin akan diadakan dalam masa terdekat.

Sebagai salah seorang peguam yang terlibat dalam kes tersebut, saya menasihati rakyat agar tidak terkeliru dengan kenyataan peguam Umno dan laporan akhbar Umno tersebut. Banyak yang mereka sembunyikan dan tidak jelaskan tentang apa yang sebenarnya berlaku di Mahkamah Persekutuan pada tarikh tersebut.

Marilah kita mulakan dengan melihat apakah perintah-perintah yang dipohon oleh Zambry dan enam exconya di dalam saman yang mereka kemukakan ke atas Sivakumar di Mahkamah Tinggi dan kemudiannya didengar di Mahkamah Persekutuan.

Sebenarnya Zambry telah memohon sepuluh (10) perintah Mahkamah dan dari sepuluh perintah tersebut Mahkamah hanya membenarkan dua (2) perintah sahaja. Dua perintah yang dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah adalah seperti berikut:

Pertama, perintah membatalkan keputusan V. Sivakumar yang menggantung dan melarang Zambry hadir di Dun Perak selama 18 bulan.

Kedua, perintah membatalkan keputusan V. Sivakumar yang menggantung dan melarang enam exco Zambry untuk hadir di Dun Perak selama 12 bulan adalah terbatal dan tak sah.

Lapan permohonan Zambry tidak dilulus Mahkamah

Itu sahaja dua perintah yang Mahkamah Persekutuan benarkan pada 16 April lalu. Tidak lebih dari itu. Apa sahaja kenyataan dari peguam Umno selain dari dua perintah tersebut bukanlah perintah Mahkamah sebaliknya adalah kenyataan mereka yang tidak berasas.

Memandangkan Mahkamah Persekutuan hanya membenarkan dua perintah di atas, adalah jelas Mahkamah tidak membenarkan lapan (8) perintah lain yang juga dipohon oleh Umno dan dihujahkan oleh para peguam Zambry dan pasukan peguam Sivakumar.

Apakah perintah-perintah yang dipohon oleh Zambry dan enam exconya tetapi tidak dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan? Mari sama-sama kita saksikan lapan perintah yang TIDAK DIBENARKAN tersebut.

Meskipun peguam Umno berhempas pulas dan bermati-matian berhujah, Mahkamah Persekutuan TIDAK MEMBENARKAN perintah-perintah berikut:

1. Perintah untuk Mahkamah mengisytiharkan bahawa keputusan Sivakumar (defendan pertama di dalam kes tersebut) menggantung dan melarang Plaintif Pertama (Zambry) menghadiri pada sidang Dun selama 18 bulan adalah ultra vires (bertentangan) dengan Undang-Undang Tubuh Negeri Perak, Perintah-Perintah Tetap Dewan Perhimpunan Undang Negeri Perak (standing orders) dan Enakmen Dewan Perhimpunan Undangan (Keistimewaan) 1959 dan/atau undang-undang yang berkaitan dan oleh itu adalah terbatal dan tak sah.

2. Perintah untuk Mahkamah mengisytiharkan bahawa perbuatan Sivakumar menggantung dan melarang Zambry menghadiri sidang DUN selama 18 bulan adalah menyalahi undang-undang.

3. Perintah untuk Mahkamah mengisytiharkan bahawa keputusan Sivakumar menggantung dan melarang Plaintif ke-2 hingga Plaintif ke-7 (enam Exco) menghadiri sidang Dun selama 12 bulan adalah ultra vires (bertentangan) dengan Undang-Undang Tubuh Negeri Perak, Perintah-Perintah Tetap Dewan Perhimpunan Undang Negeri Perak (standing orders) dan Enakmen Dewan Perhimpunan Undangan (Keistimewaan) 1959 dan/atau undang-undang yang berkaitan dan oleh itu adalah terbatal dan tak sah.

4. Perintah untuk Mahkamah mengisytiharkan bahawa perbuatan Sivakumar menggantung dan melarang enam Exco menghadiri sidang Dun selama 12 bulan adalah menyalahi undang-undang.

5. Perintah untuk Mahkamah mengisytiharkan bahawa Zambry dan enam Exconya adalah berhak menghadiri dan mengambil bahagian dalam semua sidang Dun dan menjalankan segala fungsi dan kewajipan mereka di dalamnya.

6. Perintah untuk Mahkamah mengisytiharkan bahawa Dun Perak adalah tidak terikat dengan keputusan Sivakumar menggantung dan melarang Zambry dan enam Exconya menghadiri sidang Dun Perak.

7. Perintah untuk mengisytiharkan bahawa Dun Perak adalah tidak terikat dengan apa-apa arahan, perintah dan/atau petunjuk Sivakumar yang berbangkit daripada atau berhubung dengan keputusan Sivakumar yang bertarikh 18.2.2009.

8. Perintah-perintah, perisytiharan dan/atau relif lain yang difikir suaimanfaat oleh Mahkamah.

Sekali lagi saya ingin tegaskan di sini bahawa lapan perintah di atas yang Zambry dan enam exconya pohon TIDAK DIBENARKAN oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan.

Atas dasar itu jika peguam Umno atau akhbar pro-Umno mengatakan bahawa Zambry dan enam exconya boleh menghadiri sidang Dun Perak, jelas kenyataan itu bukan datang dari mana-mana perintah Mahkamah sebaliknya ianya hanya kenyataan tidak berasas dari peguam Umno dan akhbar mereka. [Rujuk Perlembagaan Artikel 72 (2)]

Kenyataan tersebut tidak mempunyai apa-apa nilai di sisi undang-undang. Rakyat tidak perlu melayan kata-kata mereka yang dibuai khayalan tersebut.

Bagaimanakah Umno boleh mengatakan keputusan tersebut bermakna Zambry dan enam Exconya boleh menghadiri sidang Dun Perak sedangkan Mahkamah dengan secara jelas tidak membenarkan perintah yang mereka pohon iaitu perintah bahawa Zambry dan enam exconya adalah berhak menghadiri dan mengambil bahagian dalam semua sidang Dun dan menjalankan segala fungsi dan kewajipan mereka dalamnya.

Kalau perintah tersebut dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan barulah mereka boleh mengatakan Zambry dan enam exconya boleh ke sidang Dun Perak.

Saya harap penjelasan di atas sedikit sebanyak dapat menjelaskan bahawa apa yang Umno kata di media massa adalah tidak menggambarkan apa yang sebenarnya berlaku.

Sivakumar masih Speaker dan beliau masih berbisa. Jika Umno terus mengeluarkan kenyataan mengelirukan tidak mustahil mereka mungkin akan dipatuk oleh Sivakumar dan saya percaya patukan selepas ini akan membuat Umno menderita lebih panjang.

Saya juga ingin tegaskan di sini apabila Zambry dan enam exconya membawa kes mereka di Mahkamah dengan mencabar keputusan Sivakumar sebagai Speaker yang sah, mereka mungkin tidak sedar bahawa mereka sedang melakukan satu kesalahan kerana mendedahkan dokumen-dokumen rasmi Dun Perak tanpa mendapat kebenaran terlebih dahulu dari Sivakumar sebagai Speaker.

Marilah kita sama-sama tunggu dan lihat apakah yang berlaku selepas ini.

Nota: Penulis ialah Pengerusi Lajnah Undang-undang dan hak Asasi Manusia PAS Pusat.- tajdid_

Comments»

1. nikmj - April 18, 2009

Perak crisis: Judges have let Najib down
NH Chan | Apr 18, 09 10:43am
The Federal Court decision that Perak speaker V Sivakumar did not have the right to suspend BN Menteri Besar Zambry Abd Kadir and his six cabinet members is a perverse judgment.

It is perverse because it is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution which says, “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”.

The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the Constitution of Malaysia. In other words, the judges have refused to do justice according to law.
Court decision a perverse judgment
What if the speaker ignore the court?

Source : http://malaysiakini.com/news/102624

2. UMNO bohong, Zambry dan 6 ADUN masih TIDAK boleh hadir sidang DUN Perak - Malaysiakini - April 18, 2009

[…] Original post by nikmj […]

3. nikmj - April 18, 2009

When the highest court in the land could bring down the government of the day — N.H. Chan
APRIL 18 — The front page of The Star newspaper yesterday carries this startlingly outrageous decision of the Federal Court. The headline proclaims “Court: Siva does not have right to suspend seven”. The report reads:

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has unanimously ruled that Perak Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar does not have the power to suspend Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abd Kadir and six state executive council members from attending the assembly.

It granted a declaration that the seven assemblymen were entitled to take part in all the assembly sittings and to carry out their duties.

Court of Appeal president Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, who chaired a five-man panel yesterday, said the Speaker’s decision to suspend the seven applicants was ultra vires (outside the law) and invalid.

… The other judges were Chief Judge of Malaya Arifin Zakaria and Federal Court Judges Nik Hashim Nik Ab. Rahman, S. Augustine Paul and Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin.

This is a perverse judgment of the Federal Court. It is perverse because it is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution which says, “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”. The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the Government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the Constitution of Malaysia. In other words the judges have refused to do justice according to law.

Incidentally, ultra vires does not mean “outside the law”. It means “outside one’s jurisdiction, beyond the scope of one’s power or authority”. And we may ask, who is the Federal Court to say what is beyond the jurisdiction of the Speaker when the supreme law of the country says that “the validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”.

Don’t these judges realise that they have actually done a disservice to the Government of the day? Perhaps they have never heard of the Taff Vale case.

In 1900 the English House of Lords, which as you know is the highest court in the land just as our Federal Court is the highest court in this country, handed down an outrageous decision which was unpopular to the common people of England. The judges of the House of Lords by their judgment had unwittingly done a great disservice to the Conservative Government of the day because in the general election of 1906 it was toppled by a landslide. The case which was the cause of the fall of the Conservative Government by a landslide was Taff Vale Rly Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants [1901] 1 QB 170, [1901] AC 426, HL.

It is best that I let Lord Denning take up the story from his book “Landmarks in the Law”, Butterworths, London, 1984, pp 119-121:

“There was the great Taff Vale case. To understand it, you must know that the trade unions were virtually friendly societies. The members paid their subscriptions into a fund out of which benefits could be paid to members if they were ill or out of employment. Now in the Taff Vale case the railwaymen’s union called a strike at the railway station at Cardiff. The men left work and set up peaceful pickets so as to persuade others not to go to work. The trains could not run, and the company lost money. The railway were advised to bring an action against the union itself, seeking an injunction and damages. The Court of Appeal threw out the action. But the House of Lords, in a startling judgment, overruled the Court of Appeal. They issued an interlocutory injunction against the trade union itself, restraining it from setting up the pickets, and said that the railway company could recover damages which could be enforced against trade union funds. Later, at the trial itself, the damages were assessed at ?23,000 and that sum was paid out of the funds of the trade union. ?23,000 in 1900. What would that be now?

“In the eyes of trade unions, that was an outrageous decision. It meant that the railway company could take all the funds subscribed by the members so as to meet the damages. It meant that, in future, a trade union could never call a strike, else it would be in peril of losing all its funds. It meant virtually the end of trade unions. As G.M. Trevelyan says in his History: “It struck at the very heart of trade union action.”

That case had immense political consequences. At the general election of 1906 there came into being a new political party. It was the Labour party. They ran a host of candidates themselves. They pledged complete immunity for trade unions. Many of the Liberal candidates gave the same pledge. The result of the general election was like an earthquake. Liberals had 397 seats. The new Labour party had 50 seats. The Conservatives only 157. It was a sweeping victory for the trade unions.

Parliament immediately passed the Trade Disputes Act 1906. It is probably the most important Act ever put into the Statute Book. It reversed all the judicial decisions against trade unions. The Taff Vale case was overruled. No trade union could thereafter be sued for damages for any wrongs done by its members. Its funds were unassailable.

I think the message of the Taff Vale case to our judges of the Federal Court should be clear enough. The electorate may decide, just as the voters did in 1906 England to the Conservative Government, to use the power of their vote to unseat the BN Government in the next by-election or general election because they do not trust the judges. Poor Najib our new Prime Minister, it is the judges who have let him down. Unfortunately it would be the Prime Minister who has to carry the baby, but not the irresponsible judges who did all the damage by not administering justice according to law.

To all those judges who think they are above the law, I would suggest that they pay careful attention to the warning by Lord Denning M.R. in Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers [1977] 1 Q.B. 729, 761-762:

“To every subject in this land, no matter how powerful, I would use Thomas Fuller’s words over 300 years ago: “Be you never so high, the law is above you.”

And the law, in the present context, is the Federal Constitution, in particular, Article 72 which states:

72. (1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.

(2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.

(3) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly of any State.

Suppose the Speaker Sivakumar were to ignore the declarative decree of the Federal Court, what then? Clause (2) of Article 72 of the Federal Constitution says that “No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof”.

The Federal Court can say anything they like but the Speaker is not liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly.

The order of the Federal Court seems to me to be a brutum fulmen which in Latin means “ineffectual thunderbolt; (action which is) loud but ineffective”. It reminds me of the words of Horace: Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus, which in Latin means “Mountains will be in labour, the birth will be a single laughable mouse”.

The errant judges of the Federal Court should heed the warning of the late Lord Denning, “What Next in the Law”, Butterworths, London, 1982, p 330:

May not the judges themselves sometimes abuse or misuse their power? It is their duty to administer and apply the law of the land. If they should divert it or depart from it — and do so knowingly — they themselves would be guilty of a misuse of power.

And he posed this question:

Suppose a future Prime Minister should seek to pack the Bench with judges of his own extreme political colour. Would they be tools in his hand. — loyarburok.com

Justice N.H. Chan is a retired judge from the Court of Appeals.

Source : http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/opinion/breaking-views/23705-when-the-highest-court-in-the-land-could-bring-down-the-government-of-the-day–nh-chan

4. abu solah - April 18, 2009

adakah dalam kes yb gobing sing deo (yb puchong ) speker juga tak ada kuasa boleh gantong nya ? … tetapi dia di gantong dari menghadiri dewan .

5. Nadine - April 20, 2009

Thanks for article. Everytime like to read you.
Nadine


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Recent Comments

    fruit machines for s… on Isu Royalti Minyak Kelantan…
    Wallace on LIVE : Inkues kematian Teoh Be…
    SEO on Isu Manohara – Dokumen b…
    semut on Altantuya, C4, puaka, pembunuh…
    ibn wahab on Dr Asri dan fahaman Wahab…
    cincau on How TNB legally cheat Malaysia…
    first world genting… on RPK bongkar Surat Misteri SPRM…
    mengukir waktu on Ramalan nasib menerusi Tarikh…
    Oswaldo Beumer on What you should know about H1N…
    ahmed on Rahsia Surah Al-Kautsar
    what women want in m… on Isu Royalti Minyak Kelantan…
    fazal hatta on Balasan dunia kepada ‘ko…
    chatroulette on Kugan death widens the Gaps be…
    Pritapal Singh on Nissan Grand Livina 10000km ma…
    Toklang Cik on Sunnah Nabi Amalan Sehari…
  • %d bloggers like this: