First the theory:
Malaysia Today: - A legal opinion: Power of Speaker to convene Legislative Assembly
By Tommy Thomas, The Malaysian Insider (excerpts):
Ultimately, the issue turns on whether the last meeting of the Assembly in November 2008 was prorogued (“di-berhentikan”) or adjourned (“di-tangguhkan”). If it was prorogued, only the Sultan of Perak (“HRH”) can summon the Assembly: if it was adjourned, then the Speaker can convene.
According to my instructions, what was adjourned sine die in November 2008, was the Third Sitting of the First Session of the 12th Legislative Assembly of Perak. This opinion is written on that factual basis.
A. THE STATE CONSTITUTION OF PERAK
2. The starting point in the analysis is the Laws of the Constitution of Perak, and in particular Articles 36 and 44. Article 36 deals with the summoning, prorogation and dissolution of the Legislative Assembly. Article 36 (1) and (2) read as follows:-
“(i) His Royal Highness shall from time to time summon the Legislative Assembly and shall not allow six months to lapse between the last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session.
(ii) His Royal Highness may prorogue or dissolve the Legislative Assembly”.
It should be noted that Article 36 does not deal with adjournment of the Assembly. Article 44 (1) states that the Legislative Assembly shall regulate its own procedure and may make Standing Rules and Orders for “the regulation and orderly conduct of its own proceedings and the conduct of business”. Article 44 (1) recognises the well settled constitutional principle that the Assembly is the master of its procedure, and its sovereignty over its internal affairs cannot be questioned by any external body.
…
6. It appears as if no express SO gives Mr Speaker the power to recall the sitting of an Assembly that was adjourned by him, as occurred in November 2008. Because what was adjourned in November 2008 was only a sitting, and not a session, what is clear is that HRH’s power to summon does not at present arise because Article 36 (1) of the State Constitution refers to “one session” and the “next session”. If it is not a question of the discretion of HRH to summon a session, then by implication only, Mr Speaker has such power with regard to sittings and meetings of the Assembly. In the event of doubt regarding his power, Mr Speaker can rely on the residuary powers conferred on him under SO 90. Further, a decision or ruling by Mr Speaker on his power is final and not open to appeal pursuant to SO 43 and 89 : only a substantive motion passed in the House can review it.
But in practice, this is what we got:
Charles Hector: Perak Judicial Commissioners better behave if they want to become Judges
Judicial Commissioners - well, this is not really a Judge.They are really 'judges on probation' or 'contract judges'. Normally, their term is for 2 years - and thereafter they may be appointed as full judges.
Judicial commissioners perform and are vested with similar powers as High Court judges. They are appointed under Article 122AB of the Federal Constitution and will be on probation pending their elevation as High Court judges. - New Straits Times, 31/12/2009, 14 more appointed as judicial commissioners
So, guess what - their 'loyalty' and their 'independence' is always in question - for many would just betray truth and justice to be in the good books of the Prime Minister and the Government of the day, and also the Chief Justice, because it would be rather 'embarrassing' personally if they do not end up becoming judges.
Without security of tenure - one of the safeguards to ensure independence of the Judiciary, these Judicial Commissioners are a 'cancer' to the 3rd arm of democracy, the Judiciary.Just look at the Perak High Court decision - and would an independent Judge have made a similar ruling...
(10.34am) Judicial Commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim removes the five counsels representing the Perak Speaker on grounds that they have no locus standi to represent Sivakumar, who is from the government. He says that the state legal adviser will now appear for the Speaker. Constitutional expert Tommy Thomas, who was one of the five removed and now only allowed to hold watching brief but with no speaking rights, has withdrawn himself, saying that there's no point with no role for him to play. - New Straits Times, 3/3/2009, Showdown in Perak
But then, who is on the other side of this legal battle in Perak? Is it not that alleged 'Perak Menteri Besar' Datuk Zambry Abd Kadir and ....
Perak Menteri Besar Datuk Zambry Abd Kadir and his six executive council members have filed a suit challenging Speaker V. Sivakumar's decision to suspend and bar them from the state assembly.
The suit was filed by a group of lawyers led by Datuk Hafarizam Harun at 3.55pm yesterday at the High Court.A copy of the summons was later served on Sivakumar at his office.Reading from a prepared statement at a press conference yesterday evening, Zambry said he and the six executive council members had applied to the High Court for declarations that:- Sivakumar's decision to suspend and bar them from the state assembly for 18 and 12 months respectively, was against the Perak Constitution and therefore, unconstitutional, ultra vires, null and void;
- the seven of them have the right to attend all sessions of the assembly and execute their duties and responsibilities accordingly; and- the Perak state legislative assembly is not bound by orders made or directions given by Sivakumar. - New Straits Times, 3/3/2009, Showdown in Perak: MB asks court for three rulings
Is it not true that the State Legal Advisor already acted for Zambry Abd Kadir in the KL suit, between Nizar and Zambry? How can the State Legal Advisor act for both sides - once for Zambry Abd Kadir and once against? That is why I believe that the Judicial Commisioner erred in law...I believe that it was also wrong for the State Legal Advisor to appear on behalf of Zambry Abd Kadir in the KL suit - because the question of the status and position of Zambry is still in question.
Ipoh Barat MP M. Kulasegaran said it was a clear conflict of interest that the legal advisor who acted for Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir in a case last week was now defending State Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar in a case brought forward by Dr Zambry.
“How can he act for both plaintiff and defendant? It’s a clear case of conflict,” said Kulasegaran, who was representing Sivakumar. - Star, 3/3/2009,'Conflict of interest' in injunction hearing
I looked at that section 24 in GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS ACT 1956 (REVISED 1988), and I see the words used is "may", and not the word "shall" - and this means that it is optional, and the State can be represented by other lawyers. Further, there seem to be nothing here that states this also applies to the Speaker.When it is a legal battle between different part of the State - you could not say that it was mandatory that everyone is represented by the State Legal Advisor..If so, why if the State Legal Advisor not representing the yet-to-resign Menteri Besar of Perak, Nizar, in the KL suit?I believe that the Judicial Commissioner erred in law...
No comments:
Post a Comment