Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Speaker vs Speaker: Ganesan states his case

In a proceeding that would have put wrestling bouts to shame, MIC's R Ganesan was elected as the new speaker for the Perak state legislative assembly.
MCPX
At a press conference in Ipoh today, the 57-year-old former state assemblyperson explained why he is the legitimate speaker and sheds a little light on the dark episode of May 7, when the state assembly convened for the first time since Barisan Nasional seized control of the state.

According to him, Pakatan Rakyat Speaker V Sivakumar, who was literally dragged out of the House, could not chair the motion to sack him (Sivakumar) because he was an interested party.

"We brought a motion to remove him. When we do that, he cannot table the motion because he is an interested party. It is against the rules of natural justice," he said.

Ganesan said deputy speaker Hee Yit Fong then took over the proceedings from Sivakumar and allowed the motion moved by BN Menteri Besar Zambry Abdul Kadir to be passed, based on Article 36A of the state constitution.

"Naturally, the deputy speaker has to take the place of the speaker. This has been done correctly," he said, adding that the motion was seconded by Hamidah Osman (Sungai Rapat) and supported by 29 state assemblypersons.

This was followed by the taking of oath and donning of the speaker's regalia, said the two-term (1999-2008) Sungkai assemblyperson.

"So, 31 (state assemblypersons) elected me. How can you say I'm not the legitimate speaker? It was legally done. I have no doubts about it," said the lawyer by training.

'Sivakumar ignored my warnings'

On Sivakumar's unceremonious ejection, Ganesan said he sought the help of the police to remove the Pakatan speaker after he refused to budge from the coveted seat.

He said that he had given Sivakumar ample warning before asking the sargent-at-arms to take action.

But when the sargent-at-arms was unable to break the Pakatan state reps' human shield around Sivakumar, the police were called after Ganesan invoked his "residual powers" under Standing Order 90.

"Strangers can be allowed in the house. The Standing Orders (even) allow me let them speak during debates," he said.

Read more...

Nizar's stay application fixed for Monday

Nizar's stay application fixed for Monday
Hafiz Yatim | May 13, 09 2:58pm
The Court of Appeal has fixed Monday, May 18, to hear Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin's application to set aside the stay order given by the appellate court yesterday.

This comes after Nizar filed a notice of motion, along with a certificate of urgency and his affidavit in support of the application which was filed at the Court of Appeal registry at 2.20pm today.

Unlike Zambry's application yesterday which was given the special treatment with the Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail's presence and counsel Cecil Abraham along with Umno lawyers Mohd Hafarizam Harun and Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin, managing to have the application heard immediately, the rival menteri besar's application to get an early hearing date was only known close to 5pm

Nizar's application was filed by the law firm of Leong and Tan, from Perak.

Among others, the Pakatan leader is seeking to set aside the Court of Appeal's stay order which Zambry had obtained yesterday following Monday's Kuala Lumpur High Court ruling that Nizar is the rightful menteri besar.

Alternatively, Nizar is seeking the Court of Appeal to impose varied conditions on the stay order which Justice Ramly Ali did not allowed yesterday.

He is also seeking costs and other relief deemed necessary by the Court of Appeal.

Yesterday, Ramly, the solitary Court of Appeal judge to hear Zambry's application allowed an order for a stay of the declaratory orders which Mohammad Nizar has obtained.

Ramly also did not allow counsel Sulaiman Abdullah, for Nizar, to apply to the appellate court to impose conditions on the stay order.

Nizar: KL High Court says I am MB

In Nizar's affidavit in support of the application, he said after four days of hearing, the Kuala Lumpur High Court in its judgment allowed the following declarations namely:

(1) He (Nizar) is the rightful menteri besar of Perak at all material times;

(2) There was no dissolution of the Perak legislative assembly;

(3) There was no motion of no-confidence made against him at the Perak legislative assembly; and

(4) He did not resign the post as menteri besar.

Nizar noted that after the judgment delivered by Justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim, the judge did not grant an oral application by Zambry's lawyers and he immediately assume the post as menteri besar.

The Pakatan leader also stated the grounds for his application to set aside the stay order namely there were no merits for the application, as there was no motion of no-confidence tabled against him at the assembly, and that the menteri besar cannot be expelled based on Article 16(6) of the Perak constitution.

He also stated that there is a possibilty that Ramly had wrongly read or may have erred in reading the High Court judgment, as the case before the Court of Appeal was made hurriedly.

Declaratory order cannot be stayed

Nizar also stated that the declaratory order cannot be stayed in its application, and the appellate court had given a wrong order in allowing for a stay. Following this, he said this application is made to correct the situation.

He also claimed that special circumstances were in his favour as Zambry could be considered as an usurper menteri besar following the Kuala Lumpur High Court judgment and the move by the appellate court had violated his rights and the High Court's decision.

It had also hindered the administration of the Perak state based on the state constitution, and that the rakyat and its civil servants are confused as to who is the rightful menteri besar following the appellate court's decision.

He also claimed the decision yesterday, had resulted in an unstable political situation in Perak.

Nizar said his application would not prejudice Zambry's stay application as it is an “office of trust” and that his application to seek a dissolution would have to be decided by the sultan.

Futhermore, the Pakatan leader claimed the High Court had decided that Zambry at all material times was not the rightful menteri besar.

Read more...

It’s contempt of court, says Ngeh

It’s contempt of court, says Ngeh

By CLARA CHOOI


IPOH: Pakatan Rakyat has accused Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir of acting in contempt of court by resuming the duties of the Perak Mentri Besar.

State DAP chief Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham said that until the Court of Appeal made its decision, neither Dr Zambry nor Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin could legally carry out any mentri besar duty.

The former senior executive council member added that by resuming his duties Tuesday, Dr Zambry had caused the nation to think that he had already won his appeal against Monday’s High Court ruling.

The Court of Appeal had on Tuesday granted Dr Zambry a stay of execution pending his appeal on the High Court’s ruling that Nizar was the rightful mentri besar “at all material times.”

Since then, Dr Zambry and his team of exco members had entered their offices at the State Secretariat, met for an exco meeting and held a press conference.

“This cannot be done because the stay of execution granted to Dr Zambry does not reverse the High Court ruling.

“The stay only asks Nizar not to exercise his right in order to give Dr Zambry a chance to let his case be heard at a higher court.

“Hence as it stands now, Nizar is the legal mentri besar and Dr Zambry is the illegal one but neither can exercise their mentri besar duties,” said Ngeh told The Star in a phone interview.

Ngeh also wondered at the Court of Appeal’s decision to grant the stay, saying that Section 54 of the Special Relief Act disallowed any injunction to be granted when it interfered with the public duties of a government.

Section 54(d) states: “An injunction cannot be granted to interfere with the public duties of any department of any Government in Malaysia, or with the sovereign acts of a foreign Government.”

“The stay is tantamount to a form of injunction,” argued Ngeh.

Ngeh said that since Dr Zambry could not carry out mentri besar duties, he did not have the right to lift the suspension of State Secretary Datuk Dr Abdul Rahman Hashim and State Legal Adviser Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid.

He also refuted Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan’s statement that the state government could not suspend the duo.

“The State Secretary and the State Legal Adviser are Federal Officers appointed by the Public Service Commission and the Judicial and Legal Service Commission respectively.

“However, when they are seconded to and employed by the state government, the state government has the authority over them as their employer.

“Therefore, they can be suspended from their duties pending formal complaints lodged against them with both the commissions,” he said.

Read more...

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Aku Mandela dan Gandhi Adalah Sama - (Sama Hitam Manis)

Saya memohon maaf kepada pembaca setia blog saya kerana terlewat untuk mengemaskinikan tulisan saya. Selepas keputusan mahkamah semalam, saya bertemu dengan pemimpin-pemimpin, para peguam serta rakan-rakan untuk membincangkan tindakan kami seterusnya.

Seperti yang saya nyatakan dalam kenyataan ringkas akhbar, saya menerima keputusan mahkamah dengan hati dan fikiran yang terbuka, tanpa mempersoalkan keputusan itu.

Keputusan itu membuktikan mahkamah adil dalam melaksanakan tanggungjawab perundangan, dan sekali gus menolak persepsi yang diada-adakan oleh Pakatan Pembangkang.

Bagaimanapun saya dan rakan-rakan akan meneruskan perjuangan kami menegakkan keadilan dan membela rakyat. Ini adalah tradisi dan intipati perjuangan Barisan Nasional.

Menegakkan kebenaran bukanlah satu tanggungjawab yang mudah. Ia memerlukan pengorbanan dan kegigihan.

Nelson Mandela misalnya mengorbankan kebebasannya selama 27 tahun demi membebaskan rakyat Afrika Selatan dari cengkaman “apartheid”.

Mahatma Ghandi pula mengorbankan nyawanya untuk memastikan kemerdekaan India serta rakyatnya dapat hidup aman tanpa sempadan kasta dan agama.

Perjuangan menegakkan keberanian ini memerlukan “keberanian”. Mandela pernah berkata : “Saya mempelajari bahawa keberanian bukanlah bermakna tidak punya perasaan takut, tetapi Berjaya mengatasinya. Mereka yang berani bukanlah mereka yang tidak punya perasaan takut tetapi mereka yang mampu menakluki rasa takut itu. (I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear. )

Jika dibandingkan dengan dua tokoh yang disebutkan tadi, perjuangan dan pengorbanan yang saya serta rakan-rakan lalui tidaklah seteruk mereka. Sekurang-kurangnya saya tidak hilang kebebasan atau disakiti untuk menegakkan kebenaran.

Saya hanya menempuhi persepsi umum yang negatif seperti yang dilemparkan oleh pakatan pembangkang termasuk Menteri Besar Dato’ Seri Nizar Jamaluddin serta orang-orang kanannya.

Tuduhan terbaru ialah penggunaan bomoh yang saya rasakan amat serius kerana ia melibatkan perbuatan syirik. Ini adalah antara taktik politik kebencian (politics of hatred) yang digunakan oleh mereka supaya rakyat membenci Barisan Nasional.

Tetapi taktik seperti ini bukanlah budaya Barisan Nasional.

Memetik kata Martin Luther King Jr, kegelapan tidak akan mengatasi kegelapan. Kebencian tidak akan menghapuskan kebencian, hanya kasih sayang mampu mengubahnya. (Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.)

Pada saya kehilangan jawatan Menteri Besar tidak akan mengurangkan semangat juang saya untuk menegakkan kebenaran. Jika Nizar dan rakan-rakannya yang kini mula bermaharaja-lela dan rakus kuasa (termasuk memasuki pejabat Menteri Besar seawal 7.15 pagi pada 12 Mei), menyangka keputusan mahkamah itu akan mengurangkan semangat juang saya maka mereka sudah tersilap baca.

Perjuangan menegakkan kebenaran tidak perlu pada jawatan.

Bagaimanapun saya akui adalah sukar untuk menukarkan persepsi penyokong mereka tentang saya dan Barisan Nasional. Ceramah-ceramah, laman-laman portal, serta akhbar milik pembangkang berjaya memberikan imej negatif terhadap kami.

Tidak hairanlah ada golongan yang percaya dengan tuduhan mereka kononnya adun-adun Barisan Nasional memulakan kekecohan dalam dewan undangan negeri pada 7 Mei lepas.

Bekas speaker V. SIvakumar pula seperti “buta undang-undang” mendakwa keputusan mahkamah tinggi semalam, mengatasi keputusan mahkamah Persekutuan yang mengistiharkan penggantungan saya serta enam exco sebagai tidak sah.

Padahal, Mahkamah Persekutuan mengatasi keputusan mahkamah Tinggi. Ini adalah antara contoh manipulasi yang dibuat oleh pakatan pembangkang.

Mereka hanya menerima keputusan undang-undang yang menyebelahi mereka dan menolak keputusan yang tidak bersama mereka. Inilah "selective justice" yang diamalkan oleh pembangkang.

Saya tidak akan mencerca dan menjaja keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi seperti yang dilakukan oleh Nizar dan Ngeh dalam ceramah-ceramah mereka apabila keputusan-keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan tidak menyebelahi mereka.

Saya tidak dapat membayangkan betapa rakusnya mereka apabila Nizar disahkan semula sebagai Menteri Besar. Kerakusan mereka di dalam dewan tempohari mencerminkan kerakusan yang akan dilakukan sebaik sahaja Nizar menduduki kerusi Menteri Besar.

Salam Perjuangan.

Read more...

Suhakam:Credibility of the courts at stake

KUALA LUMPUR: The credibility of the courts is at stake in the Nizar-Zambry saga, said Suhakam chairman Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman.

“This is a matter of great public importance,” he added.

Abu Talib said Suhakam commissioners had discussed the incident in Perak on May 7 at their monthly meeting on Monday.

“It appears to us that during the incident that occurred at the Perak State Legislative Assembly on May 7, the police and civil service had acted in concert with the government that had assumed power in controversial circumstances, showing complete disregard for human rights.

“Governments may change but those who serve in the police and administration must remain loyal to the wider interest and respect human rights rather than the narrow interest of individuals who form the government of the day.”

He said the May 7 sitting proceeded even though the court was scheduled to sit four days later to determine who was the legitimate Mentri Besar.

He said the pre-emptive proceedings, the motion to sack the legitimate Speaker and his removal from the House and the action of the police caused concern to the people.

Read more...

Pakatan MB, excos vacate office

Pakatan MB, excos vacate office
May 12, 09 2:47pm
Pakatan Rakyat Menteri Besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin and his executive councillors vacated their office this afternoon.
MCPX
Saying they respect the Court of Appeal's decision, the MB and his excos left the state secretariat building in Ipoh at about 2.30pm, some seven hours after taking over the reins of administration again.

Earlier, Barisan Nasional Menteri Besar Zambry Abdul Kadir urged Nizar to accept the Court of Appeal's stay order and to move out of the state secretariat building immediately.

"They should accept the decision and not protest whenever the courts do not favour them," he told a hastily arranged press conference at the state Umno headquarters in Ipoh.

Zambry, who wants to resume his duties as MB, was however coy as to when he would go to the office, saying he wants to avoid "unnecessary tension" with political rivals.

Tightlipped on emergency sitting

He also refused to reveal if BN would push for an emergency sitting of the state legislative assembly to initiate a no-confidence vote against Nizar.

"It is premature to say at this moment," he said.

Asked what would happen if Nizar refuses to vacate the menteri besar's office, Zambry replied: "It is not a question. They have to realise that this is a court ruling."

Citing himself as an example, Zambry said he respected the court ruling yesterday and did not report for duty or attend the state investiture attended by the Perak Regent Raja Nazrin Shah.

Zambry later lifted the suspension on the state legal adviser and state secretary issued by Nizar.

He also stressed that all earlier decisions by the BN state government stands.

Nizar had led his eight exco members to the state secretariat building to report for duty at 7.30am today.

Policy decisions were then immediately made and announced at an 11am press conference.

Read more...

Monday, May 11, 2009

Back to square one.

The Court of Appeal grants Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir his application for a stay of execution on the KL High Court ruling yesterday that declared Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin the righful mentri besar of Perak. Essentially, it might mean Dr Zambry is mentri besar until his appeal is heard.

This latest development has put the on-going tussle for the state government back to square one.

The Court of Appeal has granted a stay of execution on yesterday's High Court decision which recognised Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as the rightful Perak menteri besar.

This will put on hold the decision of the High Court pending an appeal by Perak BN Menteri Besar Zambry Abd Kadir.

This means that rival MB, Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, cannot seek the sultan's consent to dissolve the state assembly until the appeal has been heard.

Today's decision put an end to Nizar's bid to return as the lawful MB. He has been in office for less than 24 hours since the High Court decision.

Zambry filed his appeal this morning and the issue will be heard on a date to be set by the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal decision has once again plunged Perak in limbo with both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat fighting one another to claim power.

Court of Appeal judge Ramly Mohd Ali had today heard the stay application on his own, departing from the usual practice of a three-member panel.

Such a departure is acceptable and has been done previously for various grounds.

Zambry's lawyers argued that the stay is important to stop Nizar from trying to seek the approval of the Perak sultan to dissolve the state assembly.

His lead counsel, Cecil Abraham, added that if the dissolution were granted, Zambry's appeal would be academic.

Meanwhile, attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail, who was also in court today, supported the motion.

He argued that the suspension of state secretary and state legal adviser by Nizar late last night was illegal as these are federal appointments.

Decision made at 1pm

Nizar's lawyer, Sulaiman Abdullah, urged the court to fix an early date for the appeal hearing.

Counsel Cecil and Sunil Abraham represented Zambry, while Nizar was represented by Sulaiman, Ranjit Singh and Edmund Bon.

In addition to Gani, AG’s Chambers prosecution division chief Abdul Majid Hamzah was in court.

BN and Umno lawyers, Hafarizam Harun and Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin, held a watching brief.

Also in court were two PKR assemblypersons turned BN-friendly Independents - Mohd Osman Jailu (Changkat Jering) and Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang). Their defections had made it possible for BN to take over the Perak government.

After the decision, which was delivered at about 1pm, Hafarizam urged Nizar to vacate his office to allow Zambry to move in.

Sulaiman meanwhile said he had to take instructions from Nizar on what to do next.

Read more...

Zambry compares himself to Mandela, Gandhi

IPOH: Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir, whose nearly three-month tenure as mentri besar was ruled illegitimate by the Kuala Lumpur High Court on Monday, has likened himself to Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi.

Warning Pakatan Rakyat not to under-estimate him, he said the High Court’s “shocking decision” did not mean he would give up the fight.

“To me, losing the mentri besar post will not reduce my fighting spirit in upholding the truth.

If reinstated Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin and his “friends ... assume that the High Court’s decision will dampen my spirit, then they have read me wrong,” he said in a blog entry early Tuesday morning.

He said a person did not need to hold a post in his struggle to uphold the truth, and likened the recent struggles faced by him and his “comrades from the Barisan Nasional” to those endured by politicians like Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi.

“Nelson Mandela sacrificed his freedom for 27 years in order to free South Africans from the grip of ‘apartheid.’

“Gandhi also sacrificed his life for the sake of India’s independence and so his people would be able to live without caste or religious boundaries,” he said.

Dr Zambry said however that it was lucky for him that his struggles had not caused him physical harm or loss of freedom.

“I only had to withstand the negative perceptions that Nizar and his people have created of me and the Barisan’s image.

“I know it will be hard to change such perceptions for their accusations are all over the Internet,” he said.

He also accused Pakatan Rakyat of being “greedy,” expressing disbelief at Pakatan’s “swift way of moving back into power,” especially the way they had reported to work at the state secretariat at 7:15am Tuesday, saying this was part of their “tyranny.”

Dr Zambry also reiterated that he accepted the High Court’s decision with an open heart and vowed that he would not question it.

“I will not be like the Pakatan which practises ‘selective justice’ by only accepting the decisions that favour themselves and rejecting those that do not,” he said.

Dr Zambry also maintained that the Federal Court’s decision that Speaker V. Sivakumar had no right to suspend him and his six executive councillors still held, although the High Court ruled that Nizar was the rightful mentri besar.

Read more...

Court of Appeal hears Zambry's appeal

Zambry Abd Kadir has filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal against the High Court’s decision not to recognise him as the legitimate Perak menteri besar.
MCPX
His lawyers have also lodged an application for a stay of yesterday’s decision, pending the appeal.

The application is being heard by an one-man panel of justice Ramly Mohd Ali.

Ramly began hearing the application at 11.45am at the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya.

Counsel Cecil Abraham and Sunil Abraham are representing Zambry. Also present are attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail and head of the AG’s Chambers’ prosecution division, Abdul Majid Hamzah.

BN and Umno lawyers, Hafarizam Harun and Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin, are holding a watching brief.

Nizar's lawyers Sulaiman Abdullah, Ranjit Singh and Edmund Bon arrived in court at 11am.

Also present in court are two PKR assemblypersons turned BN-friendly Independents - Mohd Osman Jailu (Changkat Jering) and Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang). Their defections had made it possible for BN to take over the Perak government.

Read more...

STRUKTUR BADAN KEHAKIMAN MALAYSIA

STRUKTUR BADAN KEHAKIMAN MALAYSIA




“Kenaikan pangkat hakim-hakim, jika sistem sedemikian wujud, hendaklah diasaskan kepada
faktor-faktor objektif, khususnya, kebolehan, integriti dan pengalaman.”
—Terjemahan dari Klausa 13 Prinsip-Prinsip Asas Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu Mengenai Kebebasan Kehakiman yang dalam bahasa asalnya berbunyi—

“Kesaksamaan adalah perlu bagi perlaksanaan jawatan kehakiman secara sempurna. Ianya terpakai bukan hanya bagi keputusan itu sendiri tetapi juga kepada proses-proses bagaimana keputusan itu dibuat.” “Seseorang hakim hendaklah melaksanakan kewajipan-kewajipan kehakimannya tanpa memihak, berat sebelah atau prejudis.”

“Integriti adalah perlu bagi perlaksanaan jawatan kehakiman secara sempurna.”

“Ketatasusilaan, dan penzahiran ketatasusilaan, adalah perlu bagi perlaksanaan kesemua aktiviti-aktiviti seseorang hakim.”
–Terjemahan dari Prinsip-Prinsip Bangalore Mengenai Tatalaku Kehakiman yang dalam bahasa asalnya berbunyi–

MAHKAMAH ATASAN

Mahkamah Persekutuan

Mahkamah Tertinggi

Mahkamah Persekutuan merupakan otoriti kehakiman yang tertinggi sekali di Malaysia. Ianya ditubuhkan di bawah Perkara 121(2) Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Keputusannya mengikat semua mahkamah.

Sebelum 1hb. Januari 1985, sistem mahkamah atasan di Malaysia adalah sistem tiga peringkat iaitu–

Majlis Privy

Mahkamah Agung

Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya dan Mahkamah Tinggi Borneo

Majlis Privy merupakan mahkamah rayuan tertinggi bagi Malaysia sehingga 31hb. Disember 1984. Pada 1hb. Januari 1985, semua rayuan dari Malaysia ke Majlis Privy telah dimansuhkan. Bagi menggantikannya, Mahkamah Agung Malaysia ditubuhkan menjadikannya mahkamah rayuan terakhir di negara ini. Pemansuhan rayuan ke Majlis Privy telah mengakibatkan perubahan sistem tiga peringkat mahkamah atasan kepada sistem dua peringkat iaitu Mahkamah Agung dan dua (2) Mahkamah Tinggi.

Pada 1994, perubahan yang ketara berlaku kepada Badan Kehakiman apabila Parlimen meminda Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Melalui pindaan tersebut, Mahkamah Rayuan telah ditubuhkan. Mahkamah Agung dinamakan semula sebagai Mahkamah Persekutuan. Oleh yang demikian sistem tiga peringkat mahkamah atasan dihidupkan semula.

Mahkamah Persekutuan diketuai oleh Ketua Hakim Negara. Sebelum pindaan Perlembagaan Persekutuan, jawatan tersebut dikenali dalam Bahasa Inggerisnya sebagai “Lord President”.

Ahli-Ahli

Mengikut Perkara 122(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan Mahkamah Persekutuan hendaklah terdiri daripada Ketua Hakim Negara, Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan, kedua-dua Hakim Besar Mahkamah Tinggi dan tujuh hakim lain.

Pelantikan Hakim-Hakim

Perkara 122B Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan bahawa Ketua Hakim Negara, Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan, Hakim-Hakim Besar Mahkamah Tinggi dan lain-lain hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan hendaklah dilantik oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong yang bertindak atas nasihat Perdana Menteri setelah berunding dengan Majlis Raja-Raja. Sebelum mengemukakan nasihatnya, Perdana Menteri hendaklah, kecuali bagi pelantikan Ketua Hakim Negara berunding dengan Ketua Hakim Negara.

Pelantikan Hakim-Hakim Tambahan

Perkara 122(1A) Perlembagaan Persekutuan membolehkan Yang di-Pertuan Agong, atas nasihat Ketua Hakim Negara, melantik mana-mana orang yang telah memegang jawatan
kehakiman yang tinggi di Malaysia untuk menjadi hakim tambahan bagi Mahkamah Persekutuan. Pelantikan ini boleh dibuat bagi apa-apa maksud atau bagi apa-apa tempoh
masa yang ditentukan oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

Komposisi

Setiap prosiding Mahkamah Persekutuan hendaklah, mengikut seksyen 74 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 didengar dan dilupuskan oleh tiga hakim atau lebih yang bilangannya hendaklah ganjil dan sebagaimana yang ditentukan oleh Ketua Hakim Negara. Semasa ketiadaan Ketua Hakim Negara, ahli mahkamah yang kanan sekali hendaklah mempengerusikan persidangan itu. Perkara 122(2) Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan bahawa Ketua Hakim Negara boleh menamakan seorang hakim Mahkamah Rayuan selain daripada Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan untuk bersidang sebagai hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan sekiranya beliau berpendapat, demi kepentingan keadilan, ianya perlu.

Persidangan

Mahkamah ini bersidang pada masa dan tempat yang ditentukan oleh Ketua Hakim Negara dari masa ke semasa. Pada kebiasaannya Mahkamah Persekutuan bersidang di Palace of Justice, Putrajaya. Bagaimanapun, Mahkamah Persekutuan juga bersidang secara litar di bandar-bandar utama seperti di Pulau Pinang, Ipoh, Kota Bharu, Johor Bahru, Alor Setar, Kuantan, Melaka, Kuching dan Kota Kinabalu (seksyen 75 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman, 1964).

Bidangkuasa

Mengikut Perkara 121(2) Perlembagaan Persekutuan, Mahkamah Persekutuan mempunyai bidangkuasa–

(a) untuk memutuskan rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan, Mahkamah Tinggi atau seseorang hakimnya;

(b) asal atau runding sebagaimana yang ditentukan mengikut Perkara 128 dan 130 ; dan

(c) lain-lain seperti yang diberikan oleh atau di bawah undang-undang persekutuan.

Rayuan Jenayah

Mahkamah Persekutuan boleh, menurut seksyen 87 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964, mendengar dan menentukan rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes-kes
jenayah yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi di dalam bidangkuasa asalnya.

Rayuan Sivil

Seksyen 96 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 memperuntukkan bahawa rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan boleh dibuat ke Mahkamah Persekutuan dengan kebenaran Mahkamah Persekutuan. Kebenaran itu boleh diberi jika–

(a) keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan itu adalah mengenai apa-apa kausa atau perkara sivil yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi di dalam menjalankan bidangkuasa asalnya dan ianya melibatkan persoalan prinsip umum yang diputuskan bagi kali pertama atau sesuatu persoalan penting yang memerlukan penghujahan lanjut dan keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan di atasnya akan memberi manafaat awam; atau

(b) keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan itu adalah mengenai kesan mana-mana peruntukan Perlembagaan termasuklah kesahihan mana-mana undang-undang bertulis berhubung peruntukan Perlembagaan itu.

(seksyen 96 (a) dan (b) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964).

Asal

Hanya Mahkamah Persekutuan sahaja mempunyai bidangkuasa eksklusif untuk memutuskan–

(a) apa-apa persoalan samada sesuatu undang-undang yang dibuat oleh Parlimen atau Dewan Negeri itu adalah tidak sah atas alasan bahawa badan itu membuat peruntukan berhubung sesuatu perkara yang mana Parlimen ataupun Dewan Negeri mengikut mana-mana yang berkenaan tidak ada kuasa untuk membuat undangundang; dan

(b) pertikaian atas apa-apa persoalan lain antara Negeri dengan Negeri atau antara Persekutuan dengan manamana Negeri.

(Perkara 128(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan).

Rujukan

Perkara 128(2) Perlembagaan Persekutuan menyatakan–

“Tanpa menjejaskan apa-apa bidangkuasa rayuan Mahkamah Persekutuan, jika dalam mana-mana prosiding di hadapan suatu mahkamah lain suatu soal berbangkit tentang kesan mana-mana peruntukan Perlembagaan ini, Mahkamah Persekutuan mempunyai bidangkuasa (tertakluk kepada mana-mana kaedah mahkamah yang mengawalselia penjalanan bidang kuasa itu) untuk memutuskan soal itu dan menghantar balik kes itu kepada mahkamah yang satu lagi untuk dibereskan mengikut keputusan itu”.

Nasihat

Perkara 130 Perlembagaan Persekutuan menyatakan–

“Yang di-Pertuan Agong boleh merujukkan kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan untuk pendapatnya apa-apa soal tentang kesan mana-mana peruntukan Perlembagaan ini yang telah berbangkit atau yang tampak padanya mungkin berbangkit, dan Mahkamah Persekutuan hendaklah mengumumkan pendapatnya tentang apa-apa soal yang dirujukkan sedemikian kepadanya itu di dalam mahkamah terbuka”.

MAHKAMAH KHAS

Perlembagaan

Mahkamah Khas ditubuhkan di bawah Perkara 182 Perlembagaan Persekutuan bagi membicarakan apa-apa tindakan sivil atau jenayah yang dimulakan oleh atau terhadap Yang di-Pertuan Agong atau Raja mana-mana negeri. Bagaimanapun, Perkara 183 Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan bahawa tiada apa-apa tindakan sivil atau jenayah boleh dimulakan terhadap Yang di-Pertuan Agong atau Raja sesebuah negeri berhubung apa-apa perlakuan atau tinggalan yang dilakukan olehnya di dalam kapasiti dirinya melainkan dengan izin Peguam Negara sendiri.

Ahli-Ahli

Perkara 182(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan bahawa Mahkamah Khas hendaklah terdiri daripada Ketua Hakim Negara yang akan mempengerusikannya, Hakim-Hakim Besar Mahkamah Tinggi dan dua orang lain yang memegang atau yang pernah memegang jawatan hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan atau Mahkamah Tinggi yang dilantik oleh Majlis Raja-Raja.

Bidangkuasa

Perkara 182(3) Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan bahawa Mahkamah Khas mempunyai bidangkuasa eksklusif bagi membicarakan semua kesalahan yang dilakukan dalam Persekutuan oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong atau Raja sesebuah negeri tanpa mengambil kira di mana kausa tindakan itu berlaku.

Sebagai tambahan kepada bidangkuasa tersebut, Mahkamah Khas hendaklah juga mempunyai bidangkuasa dan kausa yang sama sebagaimana yang diperuntukkan oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan atau mana-mana undang-undang persekutuan kepada mana-mana mahkamah rendah, Mahkamah Tinggi dan Mahkamah Persekutuan.

Prosiding

Prosidur (termasuk prosiding pendengaran tertutup) di dalam kes-kes sivil dan jenayah dan undang-undang berhubung keterangan dan bukti dalam prosiding sivil dan jenayah, amalan dan prosidur yang terpakai dalam apa-apa prosiding di mana-mana mahkamah rendah, Mahkamah Tinggi dan di Mahkamah Persekutuan hendaklah terpakai dalam mana-mana prosiding di Mahkamah Khas.

Prosiding Mahkamah Khas hendaklah diputuskan menurut pendapat majoriti ahli-ahli.

Keputusannya Muktamad

Keputusan Mahkamah Khas adalah muktamad dan konklusif dan tidak boleh dicabar atau dipersoalkan di mana-mana mahkamah atas apa-apa alasan.

Persidangan

Mahkamah Khas bersidang di Mahkamah Persekutuan yang terletak di Palace of Justice, Putrajaya, Wilayah Persekutuan pada tarikh-tarikh dan masa yang ditetapkan oleh Ketua Hakim Negara.

MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA

Mahkamah Rayuan telah ditubuhkan pada tahun 1994. Ianya mempunyai bidangkuasa–

(a) untuk memutuskan rayuan-rayuan terhadap keputusan-keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi atau seseorang hakimnya; dan

(b) yang lain yang diberikan oleh atau di bawah undang-undang persekutuan.

(Perkara 121(1B) Perlembagaan Persekutuan).

Mulai 1 Januari 2002, bilangan hakim Mahkamah ini telah ditambah kepada 15 orang melalui perintah Yang di-Pertuan Agong (Perkara 122A(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan).

Ahli-Ahli

Mengikut Perkara 122A(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan, Mahkamah Rayuan hendaklah terdiri daripada Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan dan lima belas hakim Mahkamah Rayuan.

Pelantikan Hakim-Hakim

Perkara 122B(2) dan (4) Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan bahawa Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan dan hakim-hakim Mahkamah Rayuan hendaklah dilantik oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong yang bertindak atas nasihat Perdana Menteri, setelah berunding dengan Majlis Raja-Raja. Sebelum Perdana Menteri mengemukakan nasihatnya beliau hendaklah berunding dengan Ketua Hakim Negara dan Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan.

Komposisi

Prosiding di Mahkamah Rayuan adalah didengar dan dilupuskan oleh panel tiga hakim atau lebih yang bilangannya hendaklah ganjil dan sebagaimana yang ditentukan oleh Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan (seksyen 38 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964). Di bawah Perkara 122A(2) Perlembagaan Persekutuan, seorang hakim Mahkamah Tinggi juga boleh bersidang sebagai hakim Mahkamah Rayuan jika Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan berpendapat bahawa kepentingan keadilan menghendaki yang sedemikian. Hakim itu hendaklah dinamakan bagi maksud itu oleh Presiden selepas berunding dengan Hakim Besar Mahkamah Tinggi berkenaan.

Persidangan

Mahkamah Rayuan pada kebiasaannya bersidang di Palace of Justice Putrajaya, Wilayah Persekutuan. Walaubagaimanapun, Presiden boleh mengarahkan supaya rayuan didengar pada bila-bila masa dan dimana-mana tempat di Malaysia (seksyen 39 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964).

Mahkamah Muktamad

Mahkamah Rayuan adalah mahkamah muktamad bagi perkara-perkara yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi di bawah bidangkuasa rayuannya atau penyemakannya (seksyen 87 dan seksyen 96 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964).

Bidangkuasa

Jenayah

Mahkamah Rayuan mempunyai bidangkuasa untuk mendengar dan menentukan sebarang rayuan jenayah terhadap manamana keputusan yang dibuat oleh Mahkamah Tinggi–

(a) semasa melaksanakan bidangkuasa asalnya; dan

(b) semasa melaksanakan bidangkuasa rayuan atau penyemakannya mengenai apa-apa perkara jenayah yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Sesyen.

Walaubagaimanapun, sekiranya rayuan itu adalah terhadap mana-mana keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi semasa melaksanakan bidangkuasa rayuan atau penyemakannya mengenai apa-apa perkara jenayah yang berasal dari Mahkamah Majistret, kebenaran Mahkamah Rayuan hendaklah diperolehi dan rayuan itu hendaklah dihadkan kepada persoalan undang-undang yang telah timbul dalam rayuan atau semakan itu dan penentuan Mahkamah Tinggi atas persoalan itu telah mencorakkan keputusan rayuan atau penyemakan itu (seksyen 50(1) dan (2) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964).

Sivil

Mahkamah Rayuan mempunyai bidangkuasa untuk mendengar dan menentukan rayuan-rayuan daripada mana-mana penghakiman atau perintah mana-mana Mahkamah Tinggi dalam mana-mana kausa atau perkara sivil, samada dibuat dalam menjalankan bidangkuasa asal atau rayuannya, tertakluk kepada mana-mana undang-undang bertulis yang mengawalselia terma-terma dan syarat-syarat bagaimana rayuan-rayuan sedemikian hendaklah dibawa (seksyen 67 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964). Sungguhpun demikian rayuan tidak boleh dibuat dalam mana-mana hal berikut–

(a) jumlah atau nilai hal perkara dalam tuntutan itu kurang daripada RM250,000 kecuali dengan kebenaran Mahkamah;

(b) penghakiman atau perintah itu dibuat dengan persetujuan pihak-pihak;

(c) penghakiman atau perintah itu berhubung dengan kos sahaja; dan

(d) di mana penghakiman atau perintah Mahkamah Tinggi itu adalah muktamad mengikut mana-mana undangundang bertulis.

Rayuan tidak boleh dibuat terhadap sesuatu keputusan yang dibuat secara terus oleh seseorang Hakim dalam Kamar atas sesuatu saman interplider, jika fakta-fakta tidak dipertikaikan, kecuali dengan kebenaran Mahkamah (seksyen 68 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964).

Pengkhususan Panel

Memandangkan rayuan di Mahkamah Rayuan semakin meningkat setiap tahun, jumlah persidangan Mahkamah Rayuan juga telah ditambah. Bagi mempercepatkan pelupusan rayuan-rayuan tersebut, panel-panel khusus telah ditubuhkan. Panel-panel itu adalah seperti berikut–

• Panel Jenayah
• Panel Dagang
• Panel Sivil
• Panel Interlokutori
• Panel Kebenaran Merayu
• Panel Writ-writ prerogatif.

Pejabat Pendaftaran

Pejabat pendaftaran Mahkamah Rayuan terletak di Palace of Justice, Putrajaya, Wilayah Persekutuan. Pejabat itu diketuai oleh Pendaftar dan dibantu oleh beberapa Timbalan Pendaftar serta Penolong Kanan Pendaftar. Semua rayuan daripada Mahkamah Tinggi difailkan di Mahkamah Tinggi yang berkenaan tetapi rayuan tersebut didaftarkan di Pejabat
Pendaftaran di Palace of Justice Putrajaya.

MAHKAMAH-MAHKAMAH TINGGI

Mahkamah-Mahkamah Tinggi ditubuhkan di bawah Perkara 121 Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Di Malaysia terdapat dua Mahkamah Tinggi yang mempunyai bidangkuasa dan taraf yang setara, iaitu Mahkamah Tinggi di Malaya dan Mahkamah Tinggi di Sabah dan Sarawak. Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya terdiri daripada seorang Hakim Besar dan empat puluh tujuh orang hakim manakala Mahkamah Tinggi Sabah dan Sarawak terdiri daripada seorang Hakim Besar dan sepuluh orang hakim (Perkara 121(1) dan 122AA(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan).

Pelantikan Hakim-Hakim

Hakim-hakim dilantik di bawah Perkara 122B(2) dan (4) Perlembagaan Persekutuan oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong yang bertindak atas nasihat Perdana Menteri selepas berunding dengan Majlis Raja-Raja. Sebelum Perdana Menteri memberikan nasihatnya kepada Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Perdana Menteri hendaklah berunding dengan Ketua Hakim Negara dan Hakim Besar yang berkenaan.

Seseorang adalah layak dilantik sebagai hakim mana-mana Mahkamah Tinggi jika dia seorang warganegara dan bagi tempoh sepuluh tahun sebelum pelantikannya dia telah menjadi peguam bela bagi mahkamah itu atau menjadi anggota perkhidmatan kehakiman dan perundangan Persekutuan atau perkhidmatan perundangan sesuatu Negeri.

Pelantikan pesuruhjaya kehakiman diperuntukkan di bawah Perkara 122AB Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Seseorang pesuruhjaya kehakiman yang dilantik oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong atas nasihat Perdana Menteri selepas berunding dengan Ketua Hakim Negara hendaklah mempunyai kuasa yang sama dan menikmati kekebalan yang sama seolah-olah dia adalah seorang hakim Mahkamah Tinggi.

Persidangan

Mahkamah-Mahkamah Tinggi bersidang pada masa dan tempat sepertimana yang ditentukan oleh Hakim-Hakim Besar (seksyen 19 dan 21 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964).
Bidangkuasa

Jenayah

Mahkamah Tinggi mempunyai bidangkuasa untuk membicarakan semua kesalahan yang dilakukan–

(a) dalam bidangkuasa tempatannya;

(b) di laut lepas di atas mana-mana kapal atau di atas manamana pesawat udara yang didaftarkan di Malaysia;

(c) oleh seseorang warganegara atau seseorang pemastautin tetap di laut lepas di atas mana-mana kapal atau di atas mana-mana pesawat udara;

(d) oleh seseorang di laut lepas jika kesalahan itu adalah kesalahan pelanunan mengikut undang-undang antarabangsa; dan

(e) kesalahan di bawah Bab 6 Kanun Keseksaan dan kesalahan berbentuk luar wilayah.

(Seksyen 22 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964)

Mahkamah Tinggi boleh menjatuhkan apa-apa hukuman yang dibenarkan oleh undang-undang (seksyen 22(2) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964). Kes-kes yang melibatkan hukuman mati dibicarakan di Mahkamah Tinggi. Walau bagaimanapun di dalam hal keadaan yang khas, kes-kes yang tidak melibatkan hukuman mati boleh dibicarakan di Mahkamah Tinggi atas permohonan oleh Pendakwa Raya (seksyen 418A Kanun Acara Jenayah).

Sivil

Mahkamah Tinggi mempunyai bidangkuasa untuk membicarakan semua prosiding di mana–

(a) kausa tindakannya berbangkit;

(b) defendan atau salah seorang daripada beberapa orang defendan bermastautin atau ada tempat urusannya;

(c) fakta-fakta atas mana prosiding itu diasaskan wujud atau dikatakan telah berlaku; atau

(d) sesuatu tanah yang keempunyaannya dipertikaikan terletak;

dalam bidangkuasa tempatan Mahkamah itu dan, walau apa-apa juapun yang terkandung dalam seksyen 23 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964, dalam mana-mana kes di mana semua pihak bersetuju secara bertulis, dalam bidangkuasa tempatan Mahkamah Tinggi yang lain.

Mahkamah-Mahkamah Tinggi juga mempunyai bidangkuasa spesifik termasuk–

(a) bidangkuasa di bawah mana-mana undang-undang bertulis yang berhubungan dengan perceraian, kausa hal-ehwal suami isteri, kebankrapan atau syarikat;

(b) bidangkuasa dan kuasa yang sama berhubungan dengan perkara-perkara admiralti seperti yang ada pada Mahkamah Keadilan Tinggi di England di bawah Akta Mahkamah Agung 1981 bagi United Kingdom;

(c) bidangkuasa untuk melantik dan mengawal penjaga budak-budak dan pada amnya atas diri dan harta budakbudak;

(d) bidangkuasa untuk melantik dan mengawal penjaga dan pengawas diri dan estet orang terencat akal, orang sakit otak dan tak sempurna akal; dan

(e) bidangkuasa untuk memberi probet bagi wasiat dan testamen dan surat kuasa mentadbir bagi harta pusaka si mati yang meninggalkan harta di dalam bidangkuasa wilayah Mahkamah itu dan untuk menukar atau membatalkan pemberian tersebut

(Seksyen 24 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964).

Rayuan

Mahkamah Tinggi mempunyai kuasa untuk mendengar rayuan daripada mahkamah-mahkamah rendah. Walau bagaimanapun tidak semua keputusan mahkamah rendah boleh dirayu ke Mahkamah Tinggi. Tiada rayuan boleh dibuat ke Mahkamah Tinggi daripada keputusan mahkamah rendah dalam apa-apa kausa atau perkara sivil jika amaun yang dipertikaikan atau nilai hal perkaranya adalah sepuluh ribu ringgit atau kurang, kecuali atas soal undang-undang (seksyen-seksyen 26-29 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964).

Kuasa Penyemakan

Mahkamah Tinggi boleh menjalankan kuasa-kuasa penyemakan berkenaan dengan prosiding dan perkara-perkara jenayah di mahkamah rendah mengikut mana-mana undang-undang yang sedang berkuatkuasa berhubungan dengan prosedur jenayah. Mahkamah Tinggi boleh meminta dan memeriksa rekod sesuatu prosiding sivil yang diadakan di hadapan mana-mana mahkamah rendah bagi maksud memuaskan hatinya bahawa sesuatu keputusan yang telah direkodkan atau diluluskan adalah betul, sah di sisi undang-undang atau patut dan bahawa sesuatu prosiding mahkamah rendah itu adalah menurut peraturan (seksyen-seksyen 31 dan 32 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964).

Pengkhususan

Mahkamah-mahkamah di Malaysia sedang menuju ke arah pengkhususan. Langkah ini tercetus daripada hasrat untuk memberikan perkhidmatan yang terbaik kepada orang awam
dalam memberi keadilan secara saksama, cepat dan berkesan. Di bandar-bandar utama di mana terdapat dua atau lebih hakim-hakim Mahkamah Tinggi, pengkhususan telah pun dilaksanakan. Pengkhususan bererti hakim-hakim mendengar kes-kes spesifik sama ada membicarakan kes-kes sivil atau kes-kes jenayah sahaja.

Pengkhususan di Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur

Di Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Kuala Lumpur, pengkhususan dilakukan dengan membahagikan Mahkamah Tinggi di Kuala Lumpur kepada Bahagian Jenayah, Sivil, Dagang, Rayuan dan Kuasa-Kuasa Khas dan Mahkamah Keluarga.

(i) Bahagian Jenayah

Bahagian Jenayah mendengar kes-kes di dalam bidangkuasa asalnya dan rayuan-rayuan jenayah daripada mahkamah rendah.

(ii) Bahagian Sivil

Bahagian Sivil mendengar antara lainnya, halang tebus, tort dan kes-kes kontrak bagi perkhidmatan.

(iii) Bahagian Dagang

Bahagian Dagang mendengar antara lainnya, admiralti, insurans, penggulungan syarikat, agensi, urusan bank, harta intelektual dan kes-kes di bawah Akta Relif Spesifik. Terdapat pengkhususan lanjut di Bahagian Dagang, di mana semua kes Perbankan Islam (Muamalat) didengar oleh hakim di Bahagian ini yang juga mendengar kes-kes perdagangan.

(iv) Bahagian Rayuan dan Kuasa-Kuasa Khas

Bahagian Rayuan dan Kuasa-Kuasa Khas mendengar rayuanrayuan daripada mahkamah-mahkamah rendah, kes-kes di bawah Akta Profesyen Undang-Undang 1976 dan kajian semula kehakiman bagi tindakan pentadbiran dan di bawah Akta-Akta yang spesifik.

(v) Bahagian Keluarga

Dahulunya Mahkamah Keluarga adalah sebahagian daripada Bahagian Sivil. Kini ianya adalah suatu Bahagian tersendiri dan mendengar kes-kes di bawah Akta Pembaharuan Undang-Undang

(Perkahwinan dan Perceraian) 1976.

Timbalan Pendaftar dan Penolong Kanan Pendaftar

Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi dibantu oleh Timbalan-Timbalan Pendaftar dan Penolong-Penolong Kanan Pendaftar yang dilantik di bawah seksyen 10 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong di atas syor Ketua Hakim Negara. Timbalan Pendaftar dan Penolong Kanan Pendaftar mendengar perkara71 perkara interlokutori di dalam Kamar. Selain daripada mendengar kes, mereka juga membuat penyelidikan untuk hakim. Mereka juga melaksanakan tugas-tugas pentadbiran seperti menyelia Pejabat Pendaftaran mahkamah masing-masing.

MAHKAMAH-MAHKAMAH RENDAH

Mahkamah Sesyen

Mahkamah Sesyen mempunyai bidangkuasa untuk mendengar kedua-dua kes sivil dan jenayah. Pada masa ini, terdapat lapan puluh tujuh hakim Mahkamah Sesyen di seluruh Malaysia.

Pelantikan

Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen dilantik oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong atas syor Hakim Besar yang berkenaan (seksyen 59 Akta Mahkamah Rendah 1948).

Mahkamah Rendah terdiri daripada Mahkamah Sesyen, Mahkamah Majistret dan Mahkamah untuk Kanak-Kanak. Kes-kes di Mahkamah Sesyen dibicarakan oleh hakim Mahkamah Sesyen, manakala kes-kes Mahkamah Majistret dan Mahkamah untuk Kanak-Kanak dibicarakan oleh majistret.

Persidangan

Mahkamah bersidang setiap hari kecuali hari cuti am.

Bidangkuasa

Jenayah

Mahkamah Sesyen mempunyai bidangkuasa membicarakan semua kesalahan melainkan kesalahan yang melibatkan hukuman mati dan boleh menjatuhkan sebarang hukuman termasuk hukuman penjara seumur hidup kecuali hukuman mati (seksyen-seksyen 63 dan 64 Akta Mahkamah Rendah 1948).

Sivil

Mahkamah Sesyen mempunyai–

(a) bidangkuasa tidak terhad untuk membicarakan semua tindakan dan tuntutan berbentuk sivil terhadap kes-kes kemalangan kenderaan bermotor, tuan tanah dan penyewa dan distres; dan

(b) bidangkuasa membicarakan lain-lain tindakan dan tuntutan berbentuk sivil di mana perkara dipertikai tidak melebihi RM 250,000.00.

(Seksyen 65 Akta Mahkamah Rendah 1948).

Mahkamah Majistret

Mahkamah Majistret mempunyai bidangkuasa membicarakan kedua-dua kes sivil dan jenayah. Kes-kes di Mahkamah Majistret dibicarakan oleh seorang majistret. Pada masa ini terdapat sejumlah seratus lima puluh satu majistret di seluruh negara. Pelantikan Di dalam dan untuk Wilayah Persekutuan, majistret adalah dilantik oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong atas syor Hakim Besar. Di negeri-negeri lain majistret adalah dilantik oleh Pihak Berkuasa
Negeri atas syor Hakim Besar berkenaan

(seksyen 78 Akta Mahkamah Rendah 1948).

Persidangan

Mahkamah bersidang setiap hari kecuali hari cuti am.

Bidangkuasa

Jenayah

Majistret Kelas Satu mempunyai bidangkuasa membicarakan semua kesalahan yang mana hukuman maksimanya tidak melebihi 10 tahun penjara atau dengan denda sahaja (seksyen
85 Akta Mahkamah Rendah 1948).

Sivil
Majistret Kelas Satu mempunyai bidangkuasa mendengar semua tindakan dan tuntutan berbentuk sivil di mana perkara yang dipertikaikan atau nilai perkaranya adalah tidak melebihi RM 25,000.00 (seksyen 90 Akta Mahkamah Rendah 1948).

Mahkamah Untuk Kanak-Kanak

Mahkamah untuk Kanak-Kanak ditubuhkan di bawah Akta Kanak- Kanak 2001. Seksyen 2 Akta berkenaan mendefinisikan “Kanak-Kanak” sebagai orang yang di bawah umur 18 tahun, dan berhubung dengan prosiding jenayah, bererti seseorang yang telah mencapai umur sepuluh tahun.

Komposisi

Mahkamah ini terdiri daripada seorang majistret dan, jika keadaan kes memerlukan, dibantu oleh dua orang penasihat (seksyen 11(2) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001).

Persidangan

Tiada sesiapa pun boleh hadir dalam mana-mana prosiding di mahkamah ini kecuali ahli-ahli dan pegawai-pegawai mahkamah dan kanak-kanak yang terlibat dalam pendengaran termasuk ibubapa atau penjaga mereka (seksyen 12 Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001).

Hukuman atau Perintah

Jika seseorang kanak-kanak itu didapati bersalah terhadap sesuatu kesalahan, kanak-kanak itu hendaklah tidak dipenjarakan, tetapi antara lain, boleh samada dihantar ke sekolah-sekolah diluluskan atau dilepaskan atas jaminan. Bagi kesalahan yang membawa hukuman mati kanak-kanak berkenaan hendaklah ditahan di penjara di atas keperkenanan
Raja (seksyen-seksyen 91-97 Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001).

Read more...

Zambry fail rayuan ke Mahkamah Tinggi

PUTRAJAYA 12 Mei – Datuk Seri Dr. Zambry Abd. Kadir hari ini memfailkan permohonan untuk menangguhkan perintah Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur semalam yang mengisytiharkan Datuk Seri Ir. Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin sebagai Menteri Besar Perak yang sah.

Permohonan itu difailkan melalui tetuan Zul Rafique & Co. di Pejabat Pendaftaran Mahkamah Rayuan di sini.

Permohonan untuk penangguhan itu dijangka akan didengar terus hari ini.

Zambry turut memfailkan notis usul untuk merayu terhadap perintah Mahkamah Tinggi yang mengisytiharkan Mohammad Nizar sebagai Menteri Besar Perak yang sah. - Utusan

Read more...

Nizar gantung tugas SUK, Penasihat Undang-undang

Nizar gantung tugas SU, Penasihat Undang-undang
Harakahdaily
Tue | May 12, 09 | 9:07:43 am MYT
IPOH, 12 Mei (Hrkh) - Menteri Besar Perak Dato' Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin hari ini menggantung tugas Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Perak, Dato' Dr. Abdul Rahman Hashim berkuatkuasa serta-merta.

Tugas itu akan dipangku oleh timbalan mereka dan ia merupakan beberapa keputusan yang dibuat dalam mesyuarat Exco pimpinan beliau di ibu pejabat PAS negeri, tengah malam tadi, demikian menurut sebuah akhbar online.

Petang semalam, Nizar turut menggantung tugas Penasihat Undang-undang Negeri, Dato' Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid berkuat kuasa serta merta sebaik sahaja Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur mengisytiharkan beliau sebagai Menteri Besar Perak yang sah.

Pada pagi esok, Mohammad Nizar berkata, beliau akan mempersembahkan permohonan untuk menghadap Pemangku Raja Perak, Raja Nazrin Shah Sultan Azlan Shah.

"Bukan menghadap, kami hanya mengemukakan permohonann untuk menghadap," katanya kira-kira pukul 12.30 malam tadi.

Mohammad Nizar berkata, beliau dan kesemua Exconya akan memulakan tugas seperti biasa pada pukul 7.15 pagi ini.- azm _

Read more...

Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi perkasakan demokrasi

Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi perkasakan demokrasi
Tarmizi Mohd Jam
Tue | May 12, 09 | 3:19:58 am MYT
KUALA LUMPUR, 12 Mei (Hrkh) - Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur yang menghukumkan bahawa Dato Seri Ir Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin masih Menteri Besar yang sah memperkasa demokrasi di Perak khususnya dan di Malaysia umumnya. Iklan



Demikian kata Profesor Dr Abdul Aziz Bari malam ini ketika diminta mengulas keputusan Hakim Dato Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim petang semalam.

Aziz mengakui yang beliau sendiri terperanjat dengan keputusan tersebut. "Kita harap keputusan ini memberi petanda bahawa ada harapan untuk kemunculan kehakiman yang bebas. Dan mudah-mudah ia fajar sadiq dan bukan fajar kazib," ujar pakar perlembagaan itu lagi. Beliau bagaimanapun mengakui ada banyak kesan politik yang belum tentu semuanya positif.

Tambahnya, "kebebasan kehakiman adalah sesuatu yang turun naik dan pasang surut, hatta di negara-negara maju."

Meskipun begitu keputusan mahkamah tersebut "tetap memperkasa demokrasi kerana ia akan menjadi rujukan penting di seluruh dunia Komanwel dan saya tidak nampak bagaimana mahkamah atasan - kalau BN benar-benar membuat rayuan - boleh mengubah keputusan tersebut."

Lagipun, tambahnya, prinsip yang digunakan oleh mahkamah sebenarnya telah pun wujud lama. Ia juga, kata Aziz, lebih selaras dengan semangat dan peruntukan perlembagaan.

"Keputusan itu sebenarnya adalah nadi kepada kerajaan kabinet yang nyawanya ialah sokongan majoriti dalam dewan," tegasnya. Beliau berkata keputusan mahkamah itu selaras dengan kedudukan kerajaan di dalam sistem demokrasi berparlimen atau Westminster.

Aziz berkata apa yang menarik ialah meskipun kes itu bukan kes saman ke atas sultan ia bagaimanapun sebenarnya menyentuh kuasa sultan. "Dari sudut ini ia adalah kes yang terpenting di seluruh Komanwel dan ia menjadi isyarat bahawa istana harus berhati-hati dalam melaksanakan apa yang umumnya dilihat sebagai prerogatif itu," kata Aziz.

Dua kes sebelum ini, yakni Stephen Kalong Ningkan (1966) dan Tun Datu Mustapha (1986) menangani kuasa perlantikan dan pemecatan oleh Yang diPertua Negeri dan bukan sultan. "Kuasa sultan ini bagaimanapun sama dengan kuasa Yang diPertua Negeri dan Yang diPertuan Agong di peringkat persekutuan," jelasnya.

Ditanya apakah kes itu akan membakar semangat 31 ADUN Barisan dalam untuk mengemukakan undi tidak percaya kepada Nizar beliau berkata, "Kes ini menyatakan Nizar masih menteri besar dan ini memberi beliau alasan untuk memohon pembubaran. Dan kita harus ingat tiga ADUN itu masih digantung dan kedudukan speaker baru - meskipun tidak disentuh oleh mahkamah - tidak sah kerana sidang Khamis lalu dipanggil dan dijalankan dengan mengetepikan speaker yang sah.

Penggulingan Sivakumar tidak betul. Sekiranya kita tidak mengatakan begitu pun selama tiga bulan lebih ini kita lihat begitu banyak isu yang kabur yang penyelesaian terbaiknya ialah dengan meminta rakyat membuat keputusan melalui pembubaran."

Aziz berkata keputusan mahkamah tinggi ini memberi kesempatan baik untuk semua pihak membetulkan apa yang silap dan terlanjur. "Selama ini memang kita mengatakan bahawa sultan masih boleh membubar dewan tetapi ia tidak berlaku dan hari ini mahkamah memberi isyarat tersebut."

Ditanya apakah tidak memadai jika Nizar kembali bertugas seperti biasa Aziz berkata: "Dalam sistem demokrasi jawatan dan kuasa sebegitu perlu mandat. Ini hak rakyat; istana atau mahkamah sekadar membantu jika berlaku kebuntuan. Takkanlah menteri besar hendak bergantung kepada istana atau mahkamah; tentulah ganjil dan tidak demokratik."

Ditanya mengenai kedudukan kuasa membubar yang merupakan kuasa sultan Aziz berkata: "Ia memang kuasa sultan tetapi ia tidak bermaksud dijadikan kuasa mutlak atau kuasa milik peribadi. Kalau kita baca Laporan Suruhanjaya Reid dan amalan di seluruh Komanwel ia jelas untuk membantu; dan bukan membantut demokrasi." - TMJ_

Read more...

Bubar DUN - Peluang Sultan Azlan Shah muncul terhormat

Bubar DUN - Peluang Sultan Azlan Shah muncul terhormat
Mohd Rashidi Hassan | rashidi@harakah.net.my
Tue | May 12, 09 | 9:35:38 am MYT
KUALA LUMPUR, 12 Mei (Hrkh) - Naib Presiden PAS, Dato' Husam Musa mengharapkan Sultan Azlan Shah memperkenankan pembubaran Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak, bagi membolehkan rakyat negeri itu membuat pilihan secara demokratik selepas Mahkamah Tinggi semalam memberikan kemenangan dari segi undang-undang kepada Pakatan Rakyat. Iklan



Katanya, inilah masa yang terbaik bagi institusi Di Raja Perak yang amat dihormati sebelum ini, untuk membuktikan bahawa mereka adil dan saksama.

"Institusi ini tidak harus dilihat bertindak memihak kepada satu golongan tetapi bertindak berteraskan peraturan dan undang-undang. Prinsip-prinsip demokrasi harus dihormati.

"Peluang institusi Diraja Perak keluar dari kemelut ini dengan tahap imej yang lebih tinggi adalah terbuka luas. Bubarkan saja DUN Perak dan biarkan rakyat memutuskan penghakiman mereka," katanya dalam satu kenyataan.

Menurut Husam, bagi PAS dan Pakatan Rakyat, pembubaran Dun tidak semestinya memberikan keuntungan kepada Pakatan Rakyat kerana, rakyat Perak bebas membuat pilihan mereka sendiri.

Katanya, pembubaran Dun merupakan tetap langkah terpuji yang membuktikan PAS dan Pakatan Rakyat adalah pemain demokrasi yang jujur dan pruden serta berani meletakkan rakyat di tempat teratas.

"Kuasa bukan segala-galanya tetapi prinsip-prinsip utama lebih didahulukan," tegas beliau yang juga Exco Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan.

Naib Presiden PAS itu juga menyifatkan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur yang mengembalikan jawatan Dato' Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin sebagai Menteri Besar Perak yang sah adalah mengejutkan.

Katanya, keberanian Hakim Abdul Aziz Rahim membawa Mahkamah Malaysia keluar sebagai institusi yang bebas dan berintegriti adalah amat mengejutkan.

"Beliau adalah seorang hero baru," kata Husam.

Husam juga menempelak Perdana Menteri, Dato' Seri Mohd Najib Tun Razak, kerana beliau sepatutnya tidak lagi menggunakan saluran undang-undang untuk menyelesaikan krisis Perak yang beliau sendiri mulakan.

Tegasnya, walaupun keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi boleh dirayu, tetapi, rakyat tetap beranggapan bahawa pemecatan Nizar adalah tidak sah, dan ianya telah pun diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi,

Menurutnya, Najib harus berani menerima realiti dan berani menyelesaikan kemelut ini mengikut saluran politik adalah langkah yang paling baik.

"Jika rayuan itu nanti masih memihak kepada Nizar, Najib dan Umno akan menanggung malu yang lebih besar. Jika keputusan itu atas apa sebab pun memihak kepada BN, rasa euphoria rakyat atas bebasnya kehakiman negara ini kembali menjadi negatif.

"Jika Najib berani bertindak bersama Pakatan Rakyat untuk memujuk Sultan Perak memperkenankan pembubaran Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak, BN mendapat dua markah iaitu bebasnya kehakiman di bawah pentadbiran Najib dan yang kedua, kerana berani mencari jalan penyelesaian kepada krisis atas prinsip kembalikan kuasa penentuan kepada rakyat," ujar Husam.

Katanya, Umno dan BN mungkin tewas dalam pilihanraya itu nanti, tetapi maruah politik dan integriti BN akan dapat dihindarkan dari terus koyak.

"Ia telah pun koyak dengan parah sebelum ini. Umno-BN mendapat kuasa di Perak, tetapi ia meranapkan imej BN di seluruh negara, bahkan dunia. Harganya terlalu mahal.

"Samada Najib ingin terus bermandi dalam lumpur politik yang tidak mungkin dibersihkan selagi ia menggonggong kuasa di Perak melalui jalan di luar batas undang-undang dan amalan demokrasi yang terpuji atau kembali ke pangkal jalan," tegasnya._

Read more...

Perak MB suspends state secretary, legal advisor

Perak MB suspends state secretary, legal advisor
Andrew Ong | May 12, 09 8:28am
Hours after being reinstated as the legitimate government of Perak, Pakatan Rakyat got back to business by suspending state secretary Abdul Rahman Hashim and state legal advisor Ahmad Kamal Shahid.
MCPX
The two officials, who have been key allies of Barisan Nasional in the ongoing Perak political crisis, were suspended with immediate effect during an emergency state executive council (exco) meeting last night.

Reinstated Menteri Besar Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin however stressed that the suspension was not a form of revenge.

"There were several things that they have done (over the past three months) which made us decide that they cannot be with us," Nizar told a packed press conference at 12.30am this morning at his rented home in Sungai Rokam, near Ipoh following the exco meeting.

"To give us peace of mind and for us not to suspect them, we have suspended them temporarily. This is not a form of revenge. We did this to fulfill the aspirations of the rakyat," he added.

Abdul Rahman earned infamy when he shouted at reporters covering Nizar's visit to his office shortly after being ousted, and also for closing down the state secretariat building to prevent the March 3 emergency state legislative assembly sitting.

He had also reportedly tried to stop Nizar from escorting Perak Regent Raja Nazrin Shah into a lift after the regent delivered the royal address at the May 7 state assembly sitting.

Meanwhile, Ahmad Kamal testified against Nizar during the ‘MB vs MB' trial. In his ruling, Justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim said he could not accept Ahmad Kamal's testimony because he "seemed to be a partisan witness".

Audience with sultan

State financial officer Jamaluddin Al Amini Ahmad will assume the role of acting-state secretary while the Ahmad Kamal's deputy has been made acting-legal advisor.

Nizar added that the while the suspension was temporary, their status would be further deliberated at future exco meetings.

Nizar also announced that the exco had decided that the menteri besar would submit a letter later today to seek an audience with the Perak Sultan to propose for the dissolution of the state assembly to pave way for state elections.

"We want to allow the public, who is waiting anxiously, to exercise their rights to choose their government," he said.

He clarified that though he will be attending the royal investiture this morning, attended by Perak Regent Raja Nazrin Shah, as an audience had not been granted.

On his relationship with the palace, Nizar described that it was "very good", citing his short conversation with the regent before and after the royal address on May 7 as proof.

"Tuanku said that he can work with Pakatan (and) I accompanied Tuanku to the lift and to his car. The whole time Tuanku was talking to me. He didn't say a word to (BN menteri besar) Zambry (Abdul Kadir)," he said.

Policies to continue

Nizar also announced that the exco has decided to continue policies implemented by the BN government over the past three months if it was deemed "good for the rakyat".

However, detrimental policies would be subject to reviewed.

He announced that all 817 village development and security committees (JKKKs), sacked by Zambry's administration, would be asked to continue their duties, while 318 local government councillors would be sworn in as soon as possible.

On Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak's apparent offer for a bi-partisan solution to the Perak crisis, Nizar offered a tongue-in-cheek reply that the ‘People First' portion of the Najib's 1Malaysia slogan needs to be adhered to first.

"The people of Perak want the state assembly to be dissolved. That is the wish of the people and it should be prioritised. Once that is fulfilled, I think we can talk," he said.

On the court decision falling on Umno's 63rd anniversary yesterday, Nizar said that the ruling was the "people's birthday cake" for Umno.

"We wish them happy birthday. Accept this as the rakyat's present," he said.

Read more...

Zambry's lawyers have filed a notice of appeal

Meanwhile in Kuala Lumpur, Zambry's lawyers have filed a notice of appeal against the decision yesterday. They are now pushing for the appeal to be heard by the Court of Appeal today.

They have also filed an application to stay the decision yesterday pending the appeal.

Read more...

Perak monarchy 'embarassed' by imbroglio

The Perak sultan and the monarchy have been “embarrassed” by the political imbroglio following BN’s power grab of the state government three months ago, said veteran Umno leader Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah.
MCPX
Razaleigh, who is uncle to the Kelantan sultan, said that the royalty had been hurt by the systematic attempts by some within Umno to inflame the Perak impasse into one of “race and treason”.

At last month’s Bukit Gantang by-election where Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin had stood as a candidate, Umno had accused the ousted menteri besar of treason and described him as a stooge of key coalition partner, the predominantly-Chinese DAP.

“Such attempts only hurt the institutions they claim to protect, and they hurt Umno and BN,” said Razaleigh in his latest blog posting.

Commenting on the court decision yesterday to recognise Nizar as the lawful menteri besar, Razaleigh said the ruling had affirmed the primacy of the constitution.

“According to the constitution, Nizar is menteri besar until he resigns of his own accord, or is removed by a vote of no-confidence in a formal sitting of the assembly. The constitution makes no provision for his removal by any other means, including by petitions or instructions from any other authority.”

Razaleigh hopes that the Perak sultan, who had earlier asked Nizar to resign, would now agreed to the Perak MB’s request to dissolve the assembly and make way for fresh elections in the state.

“This is the decent thing to do, but also the only way out of a crisis which has already spiralled out of Perak, damaged the rule of law, compromised the judiciary, the police and the state civil service, and damaged the monarchy in public opinion.”

Nizar has this morning sought an audience with the Perak regent Nazrin Raja Dr Nazrin Shah, who is standing in for the sultan, who is unavailable.

It’s better for BN to risk state elections

The Umno leader said that Umno’s “constitutional misadventure” will have repercussions.

“The government led by Zambry (Abd Kadir) was all along illegitimate and all decisions and contracts made by that government are without legal status. The cascade of illegalities we warned of must now be unwound painfully.

“This includes the deplorable events of May 7 in Ipoh. It means the resolution to replace the speaker was brought by an illegal state government.”

Razaleigh also ticked off Umno leaders for their political manoeuvres which have brought odium to both the monarchy and country.

“Our ideals are cheated when the monarchy we claim to protect is brought down to the level of desperate political manoeuvres that discredit us at home and abroad. We have no future as a party if we are seen as being against the people rather than for them.

“Those unable to rise above narrow party interests to understand what happens to a country when a government loses respect for the law might still like to consider this: it is better for BN to risk state elections that we may lose rather than to lose the entire country by being seen to be opposed to decency, the rule of law, and the will of the people.”

Read more...

MB: BN's May 7 sitting is invalid

MB: BN's May 7 sitting is invalid
Andrew Ong | May 12, 09 8:47am
The Kuala Lumpur High Court decision yesterday which reinstated Pakatan Rakyat's Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as the legitimate menteri besar of Perak, had in effect made the May 7 state assembly sitting invalid.
MCPX
And as such all four motions passed during the sitting, including the installation of R Ganesan as the speaker, was also similarly invalid, said Nizar during a press conference at 12.30am this morning at his rented home in Sungai Rokam, near Ipoh.

Nizar added that this was because the court decision had ruled that he was the legitimate menteri besar at all material times, including when Barisan Nasional Menteri Besar Zambry Abd Kadir called for the state assembly sitting.

During the May 7 sitting, BN installed Ganesan as the state assembly speaker under very controversial circumstances which saw incumbent speaker V Sivakumar being forcefully dragged out of the speaker's chair.

"(Ganesan) did not even take his oath," Nizar said, adding that Ganesan nor BN had the authority to call for an emergency sitting now.

Ganesan and several other BN leaders have publicly mooted the idea of sacking Nizar as the menteri besar through a vote of no-confidence in an emergency sitting, expected to be called within the next few days.

"As far as we are concerned, they have no right to call for an assembly. How can they call for a sitting when they don't have the legitimacy to do so?" he asked.

Tree assembly stands

Asked if this would result in an automatic dissolution of the state assembly after May 13, Nizar said that was not an issue because an emergency sitting was already held in March.

(The last sitting before the BN takeover of the Perak government in February was in November last year and the assembly is deemed to be dissolved if no meeting is held for more than six months.)

"Our constitution doesn't specifically say this. The constitution is silent on this part... We don't have a problem. We have until September (to hold the sitting) because our last sitting on March 3, under the tree," he said.

Nizar was referring to the emergency sitting held under a nearby tree after police and civil servants locked up the state assembly to prevent the proceedings.

Zambry had failed to obtain a court ruling to invalidate the tree assembly but later passed a motion during May 7 sitting to declare the sitting illegal.

However, Nizar stressed that his immediate priority now was to seek royal consent for the dissolution of the state assembly to pave way for fresh elections to resolve the state political deadlock

Read more...

Heavy security mar Nizar's return to work






Large presence of riot police at the state secretariat building greeted Perak Menteri Besar's Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin's return to his office.
MCPXPolice had positioned themselves at the building hours after the Kuala Lumpur High Court yesterday ruled that Nizar was the legitimate menteri besar.Among on standby were five Federal Reserve Unit trucks, one water cannon and at least about 50 uniformed policemen.Nizar, his wife Fatimah Taad, and his eight exco members arrived at the building at about 7.30am, but were not allowed immediate entry.A police officer said that only the Nizar and his exco members would be allowed entry.Though civil servant vehicles were allowed easy entry, the entrance gate was only open slightly to allow Nizar and his exco members slipped in to the building's compound. Pakatan's assembly speaker V Sivakumar who was unceremoniously sacked by the BN last Thursday was also in Nizar's entouarage.Nizar however did not protest to this treatment nor the fact that the press were kept out. Just before entering the state secretariat, Nizar and his men had prayers by the roadside.The police have blocked one side of the road leading to the state government’s building.Traffic was at a crawl and as a number of schools are located nearby, students were affected by the heavy security.At 7.45am, Nizar left the state secretariat to Kuala Kangsar for a ceremony at the palace where the Regent of Perak will also be present. This will be his first function as the menteri besar following the court decision yesterday.However Nizar said late yesterday that he has yet to be granted an audience with the regent.Nizar will be asking for the state assembly to be dissolved when he is granted an audience.Meanwhile back at the state secretariat in Ipoh, the police started to loosen the security level in stages. By 9am, the FRU had already left the building.

Read more...

Court rules Nizar is Perak MB; BN to appeal


KUALA LUMPUR: Barisan Nasional will appeal the High Court ruling on Monday that declared Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as the rightful Perak Mentri Besar, and not Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir.
The appeal would be filed on Tuesday, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said.
In the meantime, he urged the people of Perak to remain calm while "the situation is resolved."
Pakatan Rakyat is however adamant that there is no "situation."
“This is a great day for the rakyat (people) because the Law and the Constitution are the true winners,” Nizar said in a statement.
“It is a historic day for all who love democracy and it will be remembered for years and years to come. Its positive effects for revitalising parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy is tremendous,” he said.
He said that everyone from both sides of the political divide would benefit from this ruling “because an independent judiciary is absolutely essential for the well-being of any country and its people.”
Nizar said that all previous decisions made by the Dr Zambry administration would be subject to review but not invalidated except for the tumultous May 7 sitting.
He also suspended the state legal adviser with immediate effect.
Nizar said that once he arrived in Ipoh, he would meet with his Pakatan exco at 11pm and a press conference could be expected after that.
Earlier, Zambry said he would apply for a stay pending appeal. This was immediately rejected by the court.
The court also ordered Zambry and the six executive councillors he had appointed to vacate their office.
An aide to Dr Zambry told the media that Perak Barisan Nasional will respect the court order and will vacate their offices at the state secretariat building immediately.
He added that Dr Zambry is on his way to Kuala Lumpur from Ipoh. Dr Zambry could not be reached for comment at press time.
Dr Zambry's private secretary Khairul Azwan Harun then asked the media to vacate the office, saying that their presence was "scaring off the staff."
By 5:30pm, several truckloads of Federal Reserve Unit personnel and police had arrived at the state secretariat building in Ipoh.
“Our presence is to maintain law and order,” said Perak CPO Deputy Comm Datuk Zulkifli Abdullah.
“We will not allow any illegal assembly or procession by either party,” he said.
Nizar left the KL courtroom saying he would seek an audience with the Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, to get his consent to dissolve the Assembly and call for fresh state elections.
He would make his request for the audience at a state function at the Istana Kuala Kangsar Tuesday morning.
In his ruling Monday, Justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim said that a new mentri besar could not be appointed as the office had not been vacated.
He said a mentri besar can only be dismissed by a vote of no confidence, and upheld the Stephen Kalong Ningkan ruling.
He noted that the Perak State Legislative Assembly had not held a vote of no confidence.
In 1966, Sarawak Chief Minister Datuk Stephen Kalong Ningkan was ousted when the state governor showed him a letter of no confidence issued by 21 out of 42 legislators and asked Ningkan to resign.
Ningkan refused, saying the letters were not tantamount to a vote of no confidence in the state legislative assembly. He was sacked by the governor but eventually reinstated by the Borneo High Court, which saw the necessity of a formal vote of no confidence.
Mixed reactions (no, really!)Not all Barisan reps were ready to accept the court’s ruling. Perak senior executive councillor Datuk Hamidah Osman said in a democracy, the majority rules.
“How can Pakatan Rakyat rule without having a majority?” she said in IPOH. “Why should the State Assembly be dissolved?”
Perak DAP deputy chairman M. Kulasegaran said the KL High Court’s decision confirmed that the appointment of Dr Zambry as mentri besar was unconstitutional.
Kulasegaran, who is also Ipoh Barat MP, said the Perak State Assembly should now be dissolved and fresh elections be called.
“All this while during the political impasse, the people ended up being the biggest losing party.
“Investors are shying away from the state due to the uncertainty,” he added.
In KOTA BARU, Kelantan Mentri Besar Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat said the court’s decision had “revived democracy in Perak that has been in a ‘coma’ for the past three months.”
In GEORGE TOWN, Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng described the High Court’s decision “a glorious victory” for the people of Perak.
He said the DAP reiterates its call for the dissolution of the state assembly and the holding of fresh elections to allow the people to choose their own government.
“The verdict clearly shows that Mohammad Nizar and his state executive councillors are the rightful leaders of the state government,” he said.
Earlier, he had said that the Opposition was willing to work with anyone to resolve the crisis in Perak.
“The crisis has caused shame not only to the people of Perak but also the entire country. What is more shameful is that the police forcibly took over the state assembly.
“I think we should respect the power that emanates from the ballot box,” he said.
Perak crisisThe political impasse in Perak goes back more than three months when three assemblymen from Pakatan quit their parties, saying that they would remain independent but pledging their loyalty to Barisan.
While the state assembly was evenly divided between Pakatan and Barisan with 28 seats each, the "pledge of loyalty" was sufficient to convince the Sultan of Perak that Barisan commanded the majority.
He refused Nizar's request for the Assembly to be dissolved and for fresh state elections to be called, instead asking the PAS man to step down as mentri besar.
Nizar declined, claiming he still retained the confidence of the Assembly.
The Sultan however gave his blessings to Barisan's choice of mentri besar, Dr Zambry.
Nizar filed for a judicial review on Feb 13, seeking a declaration that he is the rightful mentri besar of Perak and asked for an injunction to bar Dr Zambry from discharging his duties as the mentri besar.
On March 6, Justice Lau Bee Lan had ruled that there were constitutional issues involving the interpretation of Article 16 (6) of the Perak Constitution and later referred four consitutional questions to the Federal Court for determination.
However, on March 23, the Federal Court ruled that the case of who the rightful mentri besar is should be heard by the High Court.
Nizar’s lead counsel Sulaiman Abdullah, in wrapping up his submissions last week, said the Constitution was the “genius of the Malaysian people”, adding that the court had a duty to uphold it. Over the last few days, he had submitted that the Sultan, while granted powers in the Perak Constitution to appoint a mentri besar, could not dismiss him.
The only way Nizar could be dismissed, he said, was through a vote of no-confidence in the House.
He also said that a mentri besar could request for the State Assembly to be dissolved in the middle of a term without losing the confidence of the majority of the House.
Dr Zambry’s lawyer Datuk Cecil Abraham, however, argued that Nizar went by Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution when he sought an audience with the Sultan – this article specifically provides for the mentri besar to request for a dissolution when he has lost the confidence of the majority in the House.
Under the article, Nizar is required to tender the resignation of his executive councillors when his request was rejected, he said.
Previous stories:High Court to decide who’s the real Perak MB todayHigh Court to rule on who is the rightful Perak MB on MondayCounsel: Sultan can appoint MB but can’t remove himA-G succeeds in bid to intervene in Nizar’s case

Read more...

Nizar is Perak MB: Details of the court ruling

KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court declared that Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin is the valid Perak Mentri Besar, ruling that his Office has not been vacated.
High Court (Appellate and Special Powers) judge Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim granted a declaratory relief to Nizar that he is still and was Mentri Besar at all material times.
The court, which issued a declaratory relief that Datuk Dr Zambry Abd Kadir had no rights to occupy the office of Perak Mentri Besar, also ordered him to show cause and give information under what policy, power or authority he allegedly held office and exercised the responsibilities, functions and duties as Mentri Besar.
There was clapping and cheering in the packed courtroom when the ruling was handed down.
Justice Abdul Aziz. who read out his written judgment for over an hour, said that Nizar, once appointed Mentri Besar, was only answerable to the State Legislative Assembly.
“Based on democratic practice, the vote of no-confidence should be taken on the floor of the assembly and only that way, he (Nizar) could be forced to resign.
“(Otherwise,) how could Nizar lose confidence on the purpose of Article 16 (6) of the Perak Constitution?,” Justice Abdul Aziz pointed out.
Article 16 ( 6) states that if the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly then, unless at his request His Royal Highness dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council.
In his suit filed on Feb 13, Nizar, a PAS member, challenged the legitimacy of Dr Zambry and the new state government.
The judge said Nizar only sought to get the declaratory relief to look into the relevant provisions of the Perak Constitution, particularly Article 16 (6) on grounds that there could not be two Mentri Besars, adding that the issue of justiciability over the Sultan’s power in the appointment of the Mentri Besar did not arise.
“If the respondent’s (Dr Zambry) claim is truly undeniable over the support of the three independent assemblymen, why didn’t the Barisan Nasional request for the assembly to have a special sitting to table a motion of no-confidence against the applicant (Nizar)?
That would be in line with the democratic principle,” he said, adding: “I am of the view that the office of the Mentri Besar has not been vacated.”
Justice Abdul Aziz held that Nizar had advised the Sultan of Perak to dissolve the State Legislative Assembly, adding there was, however, no dissolution of the assembly, no motion of no confidence taken and adopted against the Mentri Besar and no resignation by Nizar.
The court also granted an injunction to prevent Dr Zambry or his agents from acting or implementing the responsibilities, functions and duties of Perak Mentri Besar.
On Perak Legal Adviser Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid’s claim that he was a neutral party in the proceedings, the judge said that Ahmad Kamal “had not applied his independent mind”, adding that to an extent, his evidence was “coloured” as he admitted to taking instructions from Dr Zambry’s lawyer when he was cross-examined on his affidavit.
“He is a very senior legal officer but he chose to use the word instructed instead of request or volunteered,” he said.
Datuk Cecil Abraham, who acted for Dr Zambry who was sworn in on Feb 6, applied orally for a stay against the judgment but this was rejected.
Abraham was told to file a written application incorporating relevant cases’ laws.
Lead counsel for Nizar, Sulaiman Abdullah said his client would seek an audience with the Sultan soon to seek a dissolution of the state assembly.

Read more...

Nizar is rightful MB: High Court

KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court here ruled rule on Monday that Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin is the rightful Perak Mentri Besar, and not Barisan Nasional’s Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir.
In an immediate response, Zambry said he would apply for a stay pending appeal. This was rejected by the court.
Nizar left the courtroom saying he would seek an audience with the Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, to get his consent to dissolve the Assembly and call for fresh state elections.
He would make his request for the audience at a state function at the Istana Kuala Kangsar Tuesday morning.
In his ruling Monday, Justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim said that a new mentri besar could not be appointed as the office had not been vacated.
He said a mentri besar can only be dismissed by a vote of no confidence, and upheld the Stephen Kalong Ningkan ruling.
He noted that the Perak State Legislative did not hold a vote of no confidence.
In 1966, Sarawak Chief Minister Datuk Stephen Kalong Ningkan was ousted when the state governor showed him a letter of no confidence issued by 21 out of 42 legislators and asked Ningkan to resign.
Ningkan refused, saying the letters were not tantamount to a vote of no confidence in the state legislative assembly. He was sacked by the governor but eventually reinstated by the Borneo High Court, which saw the necessity of a formal vote of no confidence.
According to the Nutgraph, the judge ruled ruled that the governor can only dismiss the chief minister when both these conditions are satisfied:
(a) The chief minister has lost the confidence of the House, and
(b) The chief minister has refused to resign and failed to advise a dissolution.
Nizar had filed for a judicial review on Feb 13, seeking a declaration that he is the rightful mentri besar of Perak and an injunction to bar Dr Zambry from discharging his duties as the mentri besar.
On March 6, Justice Lau Bee Lan had ruled that there were constitutional issues involving the interpretation of Article 16 (6) of the Perak Constitution and later referred four consitutional questions to the Federal Court for determination.
However, on March 23, the Federal Court ruled that the case of who the rightful mentri besar is should be heard by the High Court.
Nizar’s lead counsel Sulaiman Abdullah, in wrapping up his submissions last week, said the Constitution was the “genius of the Malaysian people”, adding that the court had a duty to uphold it. Over the last few days, he had submitted that the Sultan, while granted powers in the Perak Constitution to appoint a mentri besar, could not dismiss him.
The only way Nizar could be dismissed, he said, was through a vote of no-confidence in the House.
He also said that a mentri besar could request for the State Assembly to be dissolved in the middle of a term without losing the confidence of the majority of the House.
Dr Zambry’s lawyer Datuk Cecil Abraham, however, argued that Nizar went by Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution when he sought an audience with the Sultan – this article specifically provides for the mentri besar to request for a dissolution when he has lost the confidence of the majority in the House.
Under the article, Nizar is required to tender the resignation of his executive councillors when his request was rejected, he said.

Read more...

Court rules Nizar as legitimate MB

Court rules Nizar as legitimate MB
May 11, 09 10:54am
The Kuala Lumpur High Court today paved the way for a fresh battle in Perak by declaring that BN's Zambry Abd Kadir is not the legitimate menteri besar of Perak.Justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim then proclaimed Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as the rightful Perak menteri besar.His decision rubberstamped ousted Pakatan Rakyat MB Nizar's argument that he is still the legitimate menteri besar.Zambry's lawyer Cecil Abraham's application for a stay of proceedings pending an appeal was also rejected by the court.The judge said if the Sultan of Perak had wanted to order Nizar's resignation, he should have called the assembly to table a motion of no-confidence against PAS leader. He said that a new menteri besar could not be appointed as the office had not been vacatedThe decision is now set to bring about more uncertainty in the state. Nizar to meet sultanOnly last Thursday, Zambry and the BN coalition made some inroads in the state assembly by removing the Pakatan appointed speaker V Sivakumar and replaced him with R Ganesan from MIC.Nizar had sought a declaration that he was the he was the rightful menteri besar and to prevent Zambry from discharging his duty.The state has been in a political impasse since February after Sultan Azlan Shah urged Nizar to step down and appointed Zambry as the menteri besar.The sultan's decision was based on the defection of three Pakatan elected representatives to become BN-friendly independents.Nizar however has questioned the legitimacy of Zambry's appointment and has been pushing for the state assembly to be dissolved so that fresh elections could be held.Nizar's lawyers previously argued in the court that if he got the declaration, he would seek a fresh mandate to resolve the political deadlock.At present Pakatan and BN have 28 seats each in the state assembly but the three BN-friendly independents have shaded the power towards the BN side.After the decision, Nizar said that he would be seeking an audience with the sultan immediately to dissolve the state assembly and pave way for a state election.

Read more...

Judge orders Zambry, excos to vacate posts

Judge orders Zambry, excos to vacate posts
May 11, 09 4:05pm
The Kuala Lumpur High Court has also ordered Barisan Nasional MB Zambry Abdul Kadir and his six executive councillors to vacate their posts with immediate effect.
MCPXJustice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim said this must be done in order for Pakatan Rakyat’s ousted menteri besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin and his excos to move back into their offices.The court also ordered for a fresh state elections to be held.Commenting on the judgment, opposition stalwart Lim Kit Siang said Mohammad Nizar will seek an audience with Perak ruler Sultan Azlan Shah to seek his approval to dissolve the state assembly."This is a great judgment. This is the first time the court has restored public confidence in the judiciary," he added.However, BN can still retain control of the state if it convenes an emergency state assembly meeting and move a no-confidence motion against Mohammad Nizar.With its '28 + 3' assemblypersons as opposed to Pakatan's 28, BN should have no problem in pushing the motion through.

Read more...

Thursday, May 7, 2009

M'sia lawmakers fight

M'sia lawmakers fight
Barisan Nasional wins control after 5-hour State Assembly brawl
By Carolyn Hong, Malaysia Bureau Chief

Newly elected state speaker Datuk R. Ganesan (second from left) being asked to leave the assembly hall by the Pakatan Rakyat assemblymen. -- PHOTO: THE STAR

IPOH: Chaos reigned in the Perak State Assembly yesterday as assemblymen from opposing sides scuffled, wrestled and screamed at one another to wrest control of the legislature.
A raucous showdown paralysed the assembly for more than five hours as the Barisan Nasional (BN) and opposition Pakatan Rakyat (PR) tussled for control.

The BN eventually prevailed when its candidate for Speaker was installed.

The State Assembly was the last institution still helmed by the PR after the alliance was toppled by the BN through defections in February.

The BN had taken over the administration, with Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir sworn in as Menteri Besar.

But the PR refused to recognise this, and has taken the BN to court. The High Court will deliver its decision on the legitimacy of the takeover on Monday.

Yesterday's assembly sitting had to be convened because the state Constitution does not allow more than six months to lapse between meetings. The last sitting was in November.

The BN also wanted to remove PR-appointed Speaker V. Sivakumar, but this took five tense hours as the PR resisted the move.

When punches were thrown, the police intervened. Plainclothes policemen pulled Mr Sivakumar from his chair and dragged him out of the hall.

BN Speaker A. Ganesan then took over the chair and presided over the opening of the assembly.

Read more...

Chronology of events at the Perak state assembly

Chronology of events at the Perak state assembly
» 4pm: After Raja Nazrin leaves the House, the heckling resumes. PR assemblymen heckle Ganesan. Earlier, Raja Nazrin shook hands with all the elected reps after the House was adjourned for 15 minutes to allow him to leave.
» 3.20pm: Raja Nazrin starts speaking. He talks about the economic crisis and the government’s economic stimulus package and the mini budget and how these are meant to help the economy. He also talks about how swine flu presents new challenges, about the projects that have been implemented in Perak that have benefited the people.
» 3.15pm: Raja Nazrin whispers something to Datuk Ngeh Khoo Ham and Nizar after they kiss his hand to greet him. PR assemblymen take their seats on the right side of the Speaker’s chair while special branch officers leave the chamber.
» 3.12pm: Raja Nazrin enters the House.
» 3.10pm: While waiting for Raja Nazrin to enter, about 20 special branch officers line up at the front of the chamber to form a barrier between where Raja Nazrin will sit and the floor of the House.
» 3.05pm: Another adjournment announced to wait for the entry of Raja Nazrin Shah.
» 3.03pm: Ganesan orders Teja and Simpang Pulai assemblymen out of the House. Requests the Bentara to remove them. The doa is recited.
» 3pm: Zambry moves a motion that the next order of the House is to start with prayers and allow the Raja Muda of Perak Raja Nazrin Shah to give his royal address. All the while PR assemblymen thump their tables. The 28 BN assemblymen and three independents vote to approve Zambry’s motion while PR assemblymen shout “Bubar, Bubar!” (Dissolve, Dissolve!”).
» 2.57pm: Ganesan speaks from Speaker’s chair. He asks police to stop the Hutan Melintang assemblyman from heckling Zambry.
» 2.52pm: Ganesan takes his place at the speaker’s chair amidst shouts by PR reps that this is a police state.
» 2.43pm: The shouting between BN and PR assemblymen continues as the reps face off around Sivakumar’s chair, now empty.
» 2.39pm: Sivakumar is physically removed by the police from his chair. He has been taken out the door. Earlier, PR assemblymen tried to block police from laying their hands on him. Ngeh shouted at the police to get out. The Simpang Pulai rep was ordered to leave the House.
» 2.35pm: A PR assemblyman was pushed to the floor near the speaker’s chair. Special branch officers are also in the chamber. Everyone has crowded around Speaker Sivakumar’s chair.
» 2.30pm: PR assemblymen line up in front of Sivakumar’s chair, as if to block him from attempts to remove him physically. Earlier, Aulong assemblyman Yew Tian Hoe claimed Hee pepper-sprayed him in one of the earlier shouting matches. Reporters are not able to get a clear view of it as the assemblymen have all gathered together and are shouting at one another. Yew said he has to wash his eyes.
» 12.56pm: Ganesan announces that he “adjourns” the House for another hour even though the sitting is not opened and his appointment as the new speaker is questionable. An assembly officer says Raja Nazrin is still in the building waiting to deliver his royal address.
» 12.49pm: PR assemblymen say to Ganesan: “Let’s go, let’s go. Come on.” The ruckus now is about getting Ganesan to leave the House.
» 12.35pm: Some PR reps have walked over to BN side (on the left of the speaker’s chair) heckling Ganesan to get out of the House. Sivakumar from the speaker’s chair also asks Ganesan to leave. Among the things said by PR assemblymen to Ganesan are: “Please lah, leave. Salvage MIC.”
» 12.25pm: Five PR elected reps heckling Ganesan, making an issue of the fact that he is wearing a tag which states “Pegawai”. Shouts of “Out! Out!”. There is pushing and shoving on the floor among the assemblymen.
» 12.24pm: Ganesan tries to take his “seat” as speaker at the state secretary’s table in the middle of the floor. A few PR elected reps surround him and appear to be persuading him against doing so. Sivakumar is still in the speaker’s chair.
» 12.20pm: Sivakumar saying something, but his microphone is still off so he cannot be heard. The BN assemblymen shout “Out! Out!” Ten more minutes and House is supposed to reconvene.
» 12.15pm: Umno lawyer Datuk Hafarizam Harun seen conferring with Zambry away from the floor of the chamber.
» 11.50am: Zambry’s lawyers in the ongoing MB vs MB court case arrive in the chamber. Among them are Datuk Shafee Abdullah.
» 11.25am: The paper Sivakumar held up earlier was a letter by him dated yesterday stating his rejection of all the motions submitted to him, which are the motions to remove him, to elect a new speaker and to change the membership of the three committees.
» 11.15am: Sivakumar makes an announcement holding up a paper but it is unclear what the document is. PR elected reps are re-energised. BN side proposes to adjourn the “sitting” for one hour. The House is “adjourned”. BN reps go back to their seats and sit down. PR reps also take their seats and shout at BN to leave the House since they’ve adjourned it. There is peace in the House finally, but both sides refuse to budge from their seats. Sivakumar still in speaker’s chair.
» 11.05am: BN side is now attempting to have a debate. They are proceeding as if the House is normal. The assemblymen are still clustered around Ganesan, who appears to be seated next to Hee on the left side (by convention, the opposition side) of the speaker’s chair. Sivakumar is still in the speaker’s chair. PR elected reps are shouting “Haram! Haram!” to drown out Ganesan’s voice who is reading a motion. Shouting continues. Ganesan has been given the speaker’s robes. He reads out a motion tabled by Sungai Rapat assemblyman Hamidah Osman, which is voted by the BN and the three independents friendly to the BN. The motion is to change the membership of the three house committees – standing orders, rights and privileges, and public accounts – to put their own BN people in. PR elected reps mostly just standing around or seated. Less shouting from them. Sivakumar is still in the speaker’s chair.
» 10.56am: MIC assemblyman Datuk R. Ganesan takes his oath of office as the Perak speaker after the motion was proposed by Zambry and seconded by Hee, and supported by all BN elected representatives and the three independents friendly to the BN. Shouts of protests by PR side.
» 10.40am: Sivakumar’s microphone has been turned off. Hee Yit Foong, now a BN-friendly elected representative, declares that the majority of the House has voted Sivakumar out and he should leave. Hee now asks the Bentara (sergeant-at-arms) to remove Sivakumar. BN assemblymen are shouting “Tronoh turun! Tronoh turun!” Sivakumar is the Tronoh assemblyman. In other words, without Sivakumar convening the sitting, BN assemblymen have gone ahead to vote on a motion to remove him as speaker.
» 10.35am: More shouting as BN elected reps cluster around Jelapang assemblyman Hee Yit Foong, the DAP rep who quit and who is/was also the deputy speaker.
» 10.28am: Sivakumar now says: “Saya belum dipecat. Yang dipecat itu Pangkor. (I’ve yet to be stripped of my position. Pangkor is stripped)”. Zambry is Pangkor assemblyman. “Saya minta Bentara untuk keluarkan 10 orang ini (I order the sergeant-at-arms to remove the 10 men),” says Sivakumar, referring to the 10 BN assemblymen he has barred from entering the House. Sivakumar continues: “Dalam Dewan, Speaker bagi arahan. Kalau tak faham arahan, keluar saja.” (The speaker gives the orders in the House. Just get out if you cannot understand.) He adds: “Saya adalah speaker yang sah (I am the legitimate speaker).” Several assemblymen on both sides are recording the chaos with their mobile phones and camcorders. Someone announces, “The motion to remove the speaker has been passed by 31 assemblymen”, at which point all the BN reps and the three independents raise their hands and cheer.
» 10.20am: Zambry reads out a motion to remove Sivakumar and all the BN reps raise their hands to vote in support. But Sivakumar maintains he will not convene the sitting until the 10 BN assemblymen, including Zambry, leave the House. Sivakumar says he rejects the motion because Zambry has been suspended. Sivakumar repeats: “My decision is final. As long as the 10 suspended assemblymen do not leave the house, I will not convene this sitting.” He shouts the same thing over and over again: “The person who brought this motion has been suspended. Ia usul yang tak sah (It’s an invalid motion).”
» 10.13am: Pandemonium in chambers. Lots of inaudible shouting. PR assemblymen are thumping the tables. BN assemblymen staying put. Raja Nazrin Shah has yet to give his address to open the sitting. He is not in the House.
» 10.05am: Raja Nazrin Shah, who was to open the sitting, is not in the House yet. Sivakumar repeats his announcement that he will not start proceedings until the 10 assemblymen, including Zambry, have left the House. His decision is final, he says. Sivakumar adds that the March 3 sitting under the tree had approved their suspensions. Shouting resumes in the House.
» 10.03am: Speaker V. Sivakumar announces that BN-appointed Mentri Besar Zambry Abdul Kadir and the six suspended executive councillors from the BN are not allowed into the House. The three independents “friendly to the BN” are also not allowed in. Sivakumar says he won’t start the sitting until all of these assemblymen leave. Shouting in the House.

Read more...

About This Blog

About This Blog

  © Free Blogger Templates Spain by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP