Utusan Malaysia published a lengthy report on Tuesday a statement by the High Court judge, Datuk Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim to explain the decision made in favour of Dato Seri Muhammad Nizar with regard to his legal suit against Zambry's appointment as Menteri Besar.
The news report was given prominence in page 2 of yesterday's Utusan Malaysia. Such headline was unusual for Utusan Malaysia that have been giving much prominence for the Raja-Raja Melayu on issues of Constitutional Monarchy.
Why was the lengthy statement by the judge? Is it some sort of pre-emptive measure to a pre-set decision already made? This is quite mysterious. It is as though the court is doing a pre-emptive move for the likelihood that Dato Dr Zambry could not pursue other legal moves.
A little bird told of Judge Aziz's close association with a certain PKR leader. For justice sake, let's hope there is no truth to that information. If it is true, it should not cloud his judgement.
For the sake of a once and for all legal resolutions for many outstanding constitutional issues, let the whole legal process initiated find a completion.
After all, it was Pakatan Rakyat that took the legal recourse but strangely were going talking for a separation of power. On that respect, what happen to the power and respect for the sovereign?
Although High Court made a decision favouring Nizar on May 11th, Zambry managed to get a stay of execution on May 12th. Nizar's decision to overturn many of the UMNO-led state Government decision and suspension of state officials had to be put on hold.
Nizar has since applied to remove the stay of execution. In the meanwhile, the Pakatan Rakyat propagandist are making wild accusation against Ramli, the judge that allowed the stay of execution. A decision is due tomorrow.
The court process is not over yet. Zambery is expected to appeal and if the appeal is unsuccessful, he is expected to take the issue further to the Federal Court.
The full legal process as initiated by Nizar against the Sultan's decision should be allowed to take its full course. For once and for all, let's resolve the issue on the question whether the Sultan's power in appointing Menteri Besar came with the power to sack on a certain situation.
There are those who feel that it will put the state administration at a stalemate. If they and Nizar believed in the dissolution of the state assembly, why was it that Nizar and others in Pakatan Rakyat took the legal avenue for resolution? For that, Perak state will have to make that unfortunate sacrifice for the rest of the nation.
In addition, since many other subsequent areas have been expoloited by both side of the political divide and each have disputed the other through police reports, and legal suits, berani buat berani tanggung (dare to do, dare to take the burden) should be the order.
There is no other avenue left but the courts, if the gentlemen and easier avenue for resolution is defied. Nizar has lost majority control of the Assembly, thus he and his Pakatan Rakyat colleague should not have undertake the dishonourable act to force others' resignation and indiscriminately suspend BN assemblymen in order to regain their majority.
In addition, he and Pakatan Rakyat should have not tried to manouvre and later blame on Sultan and Barisan Nasional. If the rakyat is fed-up, please direct it to the side who have lost the confidence of their own elected official and yet still insist to remain in power.
Another little bird explained that Nizar defied the Sultan out of a matter of principle. He wish to make a point that his removalshould be via a vote of no confidence in the state assembly.
By the stubborn act and attitude of the ex-Speaker (for the time being) Sivakumar, could we believe he is telling the truth?
Nizar has on many occasion lied and spin the fact and truth for to gain political popularity. If that is to be expected of politician, when will his character as a man of principle surface?
Ah ... lets just forget all this political rhetorics! Let the whole due process go through and precedents be set for further clarity on the powers and authority of the sovereign, and the various institutions and positions.
------------------------
Sultan tidak boleh singkir Nizar
Oleh AMIRUDDIN HARUN
pengarang@utusan.com.my
KUALA LUMPUR 18 Mei - Sultan Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah tidak boleh menyingkirkan Datuk Seri Ir. Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin daripada jawatan Menteri Besar memandangkan beliau memegang jawatan tersebut bukan atas perkenan baginda.
Sebaliknya, menurut Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi, Datuk Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim, Menteri Besar yang dilantik bersama barisan Exco kerajaan negeri adalah bertanggungjawab kepada Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN).
Menurutnya, ini jelas terkandung dalam Perkara 16 Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Perak (UTKP) yang menyatakan bahawa sekiranya Menteri Besar hilang kepercayaan majoriti anggota DUN, beliau harus meletakkan jawatan barisan Exco tersebut atau Menteri Besar boleh meminta baginda membubarkan DUN.
"Berdasarkan Perkara 16 subseksyen (2),(5),(6) dan (7) UTKP, adalah jelas bahawa sebaik sahaja Menteri Besar dilantik, beliau bertanggungjawab kepada DUN dan bukan kepada yang lain.
"Maksudnya, dengan pelantikan tersebut, Menteri Besar memimpin negeri melalui barisan Exco dan menasihatkan baginda berhubung hal ehwal negeri seperti yang termaktub di bawah Perkara 18(1) Perlembagaan negeri Perak," katanya.
Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi (Bahagian Rayuan dan Kuasa-Kuasa Khas) itu menyatakan demikian dalam penghakiman bertulis setebal 78 muka surat yang diperoleh pihak media hari ini.
Pada 11 Mei lalu, beliau membenarkan permohonan semakan kehakiman Mohammad Nizar, 52, agar mahkamah mengisytiharkan beliau masih Menteri Besar yang sah berdasarkan perlembagaan negeri itu kerana beliau yang bertindak menasihati sultan untuk membubarkan sidang DUN.
Bagaimanapun, tidak sampai 24 jam keputusan tersebut dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi, Mahkamah Rayuan telah membenarkan permohonan Datuk Seri Dr. Zambry Abd. Kadir selaku responden untuk menangguhkan perintah perisytiharan itu sehingga rayuan didengar.
Rayuan Zambry yang tidak berpuas hati terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi dan permohonan Mohammad Nizar untuk mengetepikan perintah penangguhan itu dijadualkan didengar oleh Mahkamah Rayuan pada Khamis ini.
Hakim Abdul Aziz dalam penghakimannya juga menyatakan, walaupun Sultan Perak selepas menemui anggota DUN yang menyokong Barisan Nasional (BN) telah membuat pengadilan yang Zambry mendapat sokongan majoriti, baginda tidak sepatutnya berpendapat bahawa Mohammad Nizar telah hilang kepercayaan majoriti anggota Dewan.
"Satu alasannya ialah pernyataan 'dalam pengadilannya' tidak digunakan dalam Perkara 16(6) perlembagaan tersebut," ujar beliau.
Menurut hakim tersebut, pengadilan atau pendapat peribadi Sultan Perak adalah tidak relevan kepada tafsiran Perkara 16(6) UTKP, selain daripada alasan bahawa Exco kerajaan negeri seharusnya bertanggungjawab kepada DUN.
"Ia adalah mengikut logik pada peruntukan Perkara 16(5),16(2)(a) dan 16(6) UTKP malahan Perkara 16(6) memerlukan DUN yang menentukan sama ada mereka mempunyai kepercayaan atau tidak kepada Menteri Besar sebagai ketua Exco kerajaan negeri," ujar beliau.
Dalam penghakimannya, Hakim Abdul Aziz juga menyatakan jika dakwaan Zambry mendapat kepercayaan majoriti selepas memperoleh sokongan daripada tiga lagi ADUN adalah benar dan Sultan Perak tidak memperkenankan pembubaran DUN, mengapa Zambry tidak memohon perkara yang sama.
"Mengapa responden (Zambry) yang mewakili BN tidak memohon perkenan baginda untuk mengadakan sidang khas DUN supaya usul undi tidak percaya boleh dibuat dan diterima terhadap pemohon (Mohammad Nizar).
"Dengan cara itu, ia lebih menepati amalan dan prinsip demokrasi," kata beliau.
Di akhir penghakimannya, Hakim Abdul Aziz turut membenarkan permohonan peguam Sulaiman Abdullah yang mewakili Mohammad Nizar untuk tidak meneruskan tuntutan ganti rugi, taksiran serta diadakan inkuiri dan perintah kos.
Sumber: Utusan Malaysia Mei 19hb, 2009
* Edited: 11:00 am 20/5/09
Tuan A Voice, actually there is a very interesting posting from dongtalk.blogspot owner Datuk Shamsuddin Nawawi on the 78 page Judgement of YA Datuk Aziz which I found to be a most profound analysis of the judgement so far, I am giving the link as follows;
ReplyDeletehttp://dongtalk.blogspot.com/2009/05/mb-not-answerable-to-sultan.html?
Please go to the blog, it will be worth your while. TQ
D DAY BRO! KITA TENGOK SIAPA YANG KENA!
ReplyDeleteDear Sir,
ReplyDeleteBelow I have posted a comment from a former eminent Judge NH Chan. Pls read it and come to a rational conclusion. Simply b'cos this ex judge was extremely impartial in his decisions and is not aligned to any political party.
Why isn’t there a written Federal Court judgment on the Perak debacle? The answer can be simply put.
It is because Article 72(1) of the federal constitution is written in unambiguous language which even a child can understand.
I said in an earlier article that the words, ‘The validity of any proceedings in the legislative assembly of any state shall not be questioned in any court’ mean what they say. Nothing can be plainer than that.
No one in his right senses would try to interpret the obvious meaning of the words in Article 72, unless he wants to say the words mean something else. But the Federal Court was not prepared to do that. And the reason is because they do not want to be known as Humpty Dumpty judges.
So the judges of the Federal Court did the unthinkable. They blatantly refused to apply the constitutional provision as it stands. They ignored it altogether. But by so doing they have committed the cardinal sin of not administering justice according to law.
It is the duty of every judge, indeed it is his only function, to administer justice according to law. And the law, in this context, is Article 72(1) of the federal constitution which is the supreme law of the land.
Since the judges of the Federal Court, especially the infamous five, have refused to apply Article 72(1) as it stands, they have, as a result, impaled themselves on the horns of their own dilemma.
And, in this country, this could be a ground for the judges to be removed from office. This is what the Judges' Code of Ethics 1994 says:
2 (1) This Code of Ethics shall apply throughout the period of his service.
(2) The breach of any provision of this Code of Ethics may constitute a ground for the removal of a judge from office.
3 (1) A judge shall not -
d) conduct himself dishonestly or in such a manner as to bring the judiciary into disrepute or to bring discredit thereto.
Judiciary ‘discredited’
Judging by the unfair treatment of (ousted Pakatan Rakyat menteri besar) Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin in his encounter with the Federal Court, public opinion has no doubt that the judges have brought discredit to the judiciary.
The words of section 3(1)(d) are so clear and easy to understand that we do not need any court of law to explain it to us ordinary folk.
We know what the words mean. By not administering and applying the law, the errant judges have brought discredit to the judiciary - it is a ground for their removal from office.
And if the government of the day fails to listen to the voice of the people, then it has placed itself in jeopardy of losing the next general election or any by-election or any state election in the future.
And finally, what about Ramly Ali, the Court of Appeal judge who acted with indecent haste when he granted a stay to Zambry Abd Kadir of the well considered judgment of Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim.
Zambry was appealing against the High Court judge's declaratory order in favour of Nizar.
Ramly granted the stay of the declaration but, like the Federal Court judges, has not given any reason for his decision. The judge was unable to explain why he granted the stay. As any lawyer will tell you it is unusual to stay a declaratory order.
If such a stay is to be granted, there are legal arguments to be considered from both sides and the judge will have to say why he prefers the argument of one side as against the other.
Ramly is in no better position than his seniors in the Federal Court. The people's perception of him as an unfair judge is the same as that of the errant judges of the Federal Court.
________________________________________
Rationalist
Judges are after all huaman too. They are not all the time devoid of external influences in making their decisions. As a human being, judges do sometimes err in making their judgements.
ReplyDeleteA Voice,
ReplyDeletei think correction is in order. Utusan quotes a written judgement which was released to media. So it's not a statement per se. Written judgment is mandatory before an appeal can be heard.
As to who gives the written judgement to the media...waLlahua'lam
Buleh Belake
That statement is the judges preempting to tell ahead that they will decide in Nizar's favour.
ReplyDeleteJudge Aziz is close to Azmin Ali. 2or possibly 3 out of 3 judges are bias towards Nizar to spite Azlan Shah.
BN will lose simply becasue of a bias judge and not for the strength of the case.