On Thursday, the Federal Court has lifted the suspension order of 18 months on Zambry Kadir and 12 months on the six excos imposed by state speaker V. Sivakumar.
From the Star, 17 April
However, what the media has given is only part of the full picture that happened on that day. The statement given by the defence team was baseless. So, therefore, people should not be mislead by statement given by the defence team and those given by the UMNO lawyer Hafarizam Harun.
Lawyer / columnist Hanipa Maidin, who was also part of the sitting on that day said that what was given to the press is only 2 out of 10 declarations sought by Zambry. The actual fact is the remaining eight were rejected by the Federal Court.
To reiterate, the two declarations (where the article was based) accepted by The Federal Court were:
1. Sivakumar's decision to suspend Zambry and prohibiting him from attending state sittings for 18 months
2. Sivakumar's decision to suspend of the six excos and prohibiting them from attending state sittings for 12 months.
The remaining eight declarations sought but rejected were:
1. Sivakumar's decision to suspend Zambry and prohibiting him from attending state sittings for 18 months is ultra vires against the Perak State Constituition, Perak State Assembly standing orders, Assembly Enactments (1959) and other relevant laws are null and void.
2. Sivakumar's conduct of suspending Zambry and prohibiting him to attend state assembly sittings is against the law.
3. Sivakumar's decision to suspend the Six Excos and prohibiting them from attending state sittings for 12 months is ultra vires against the Perak State Constituition, Perak State Assembly standing orders, Assembly Enactments (1959) and other relevant laws are null and void.
4. Sivakumar's conduct of suspending the Six Excos and prohibiting them from attending state assembly sittings is against the law.
5. The right for Zambry and the six Excos to attend state assembly sittings and perform their duties there.
6. The state assembly is not bound by the Speaker's decision to suspend and prohibit Zambry and six Excos from attending state assembly proceedings.
7. The state assembly is not bound by the Speaker's orders, directives, decision that comes from the Speaker's decision on 18 February 2009.
8. Orders, declarations and relieves that are considered 'suaimanfaat' by the court.
This means that although they got 2 out of the 10 declarations sought, failure to get the remaining 8 means that they are still, officially not allowed to attend and participate in state assembly proceedings.
After the court proceedings, it was observed that Zambry was not in a cheerful mood. This fact was omitted out in print by the press. Zambry and the Six Excos are plannning to appeal against the decision on the 8 rejected declarations by bringing in official documents from the state assembly. However, they are committing an offence because it is a plan to do so without the speaker's consent. The permission is required.
Also, given of what they actually feel, BN plans to proceed ahead by issuing a notice of assembly on May 7. The notice was issued by Abdullah Antong Sabri the Speaker's secretary who was suspended. The notice was issued without Sivakumar's knowledge and consent.
From the Star, 17 April
PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has unanimously ruled that Perak Assembly Speaker V Sivakumar does NOT t have the power to suspend Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abd Kadir and six state executive council members from attending the assembly.I am aware that many media and other blogs have reported about this thing and claimed that the Federal Court has crossed the dangerous line by lifting that suspension. Of course, this has violated Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution whereby the Federal Court whereby proceedings by a state assembly cannot be questioned at a court.
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.
However, what the media has given is only part of the full picture that happened on that day. The statement given by the defence team was baseless. So, therefore, people should not be mislead by statement given by the defence team and those given by the UMNO lawyer Hafarizam Harun.
Lawyer / columnist Hanipa Maidin, who was also part of the sitting on that day said that what was given to the press is only 2 out of 10 declarations sought by Zambry. The actual fact is the remaining eight were rejected by the Federal Court.
To reiterate, the two declarations (where the article was based) accepted by The Federal Court were:
1. Sivakumar's decision to suspend Zambry and prohibiting him from attending state sittings for 18 months
2. Sivakumar's decision to suspend of the six excos and prohibiting them from attending state sittings for 12 months.
The remaining eight declarations sought but rejected were:
1. Sivakumar's decision to suspend Zambry and prohibiting him from attending state sittings for 18 months is ultra vires against the Perak State Constituition, Perak State Assembly standing orders, Assembly Enactments (1959) and other relevant laws are null and void.
2. Sivakumar's conduct of suspending Zambry and prohibiting him to attend state assembly sittings is against the law.
3. Sivakumar's decision to suspend the Six Excos and prohibiting them from attending state sittings for 12 months is ultra vires against the Perak State Constituition, Perak State Assembly standing orders, Assembly Enactments (1959) and other relevant laws are null and void.
4. Sivakumar's conduct of suspending the Six Excos and prohibiting them from attending state assembly sittings is against the law.
5. The right for Zambry and the six Excos to attend state assembly sittings and perform their duties there.
6. The state assembly is not bound by the Speaker's decision to suspend and prohibit Zambry and six Excos from attending state assembly proceedings.
7. The state assembly is not bound by the Speaker's orders, directives, decision that comes from the Speaker's decision on 18 February 2009.
8. Orders, declarations and relieves that are considered 'suaimanfaat' by the court.
This means that although they got 2 out of the 10 declarations sought, failure to get the remaining 8 means that they are still, officially not allowed to attend and participate in state assembly proceedings.
After the court proceedings, it was observed that Zambry was not in a cheerful mood. This fact was omitted out in print by the press. Zambry and the Six Excos are plannning to appeal against the decision on the 8 rejected declarations by bringing in official documents from the state assembly. However, they are committing an offence because it is a plan to do so without the speaker's consent. The permission is required.
Also, given of what they actually feel, BN plans to proceed ahead by issuing a notice of assembly on May 7. The notice was issued by Abdullah Antong Sabri the Speaker's secretary who was suspended. The notice was issued without Sivakumar's knowledge and consent.
No comments:
Post a Comment
You are welcome to post in any comments that do not trouble readers of the blog.
Providing an ID is recommended. If some reason you wish to use an Anonymous name, please leave a name below your comments. From now on, comments with no names will not be considered for moderation.