MB vs MB: Decision next Monday
Hafiz YatimPublished: May 7, 2009 4:40 AM | Updated: May 7, 2009 1:53 PM
Ousted Perak Menteri Besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin's suit against BN's Zambry Abd Kadir on who among them is the legitimate menteri besar will be decided next Monday.
After almost three months of filing his application, Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin will know his fate on Monday whether he is successful in having the High Court proclaim him as the rightful Perak menteri besar.
Justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim will make his ruling next Monday (May 11) after hearing submissions today from Mohammad Nizar's lead counsel Sulaiman Abdullah who reminded the court that the function of the monarch was to appoint a menteri besar after the general election and to dissolve the assembly.
"Under no circumstances can the ruler decide to investigate or hold an inquiry to find who commands the majority and then appointing a new menteri besar. Such powers are not provided in the constitution," said Sulaiman (left).
"I agree there is a lacuna (loophole) in our constitution (federal and Perak constitution) on the removal of the chief executive. However, we must respect the formulaters of the genius constitution in not having it there. The right way to resolve would be to bring the issue back to the assembly," he said.
Presenting the scenario in comparison to constitutions of other countries, Sulaiman said the federal constitution had withstood the test of time since the Merdeka days unlike other Commonwealth country's constitutions which had seen many amendments.
"The court has the power to repair the damage done by having the present scenario of two menteris besar by instilling Mohammad Nizar as the rightful chief executive," he said in his closing remarks.
The legal protracted battle began with the case being filed on Feb 13, where Mohammad Nizar sought a declaration that he is the rightful menteri besar and to prevent Barisan Nasional's Zambry Abdul Kadir discharging his duty.
The court's decision could bring to end the prolonged impasse in the state which was caused by the defections of three Pakatan elected representatives to become BN-friendly independents.
This situation allowed BN to have the strength of numbers in the state assembly which resulted in the Perak sultan to ask Nizar to step down and appoint Zambry as the new menteri besar in February.
However, this was not accepted by the Pakatan representatives, and they considered Zambry's appointment as unconstitutional.
Three High Courts, twice at Federal Court
This case also went through two judges before it was finally heard before justice Abdul Aziz.
Initially, the case was before Judicial Commissioner Mohd Ariff Md Yusoff in late February but he decided to recuse himself following objections that he was a PAS member and had represented the party, PKR and as well as BN previously.
It was then brought before justice Lau Bee Lan but she was dropped and the matter was fixed before before Abdul Aziz, who had just been transferred from Sarawak last month.
The case was also brought twice to the Federal Court to refer on matters pertaining to the Perak constitution. But on both occasion the apex court reverted the case to the High Court.
Following that, four days of hearing started this week and saw Mohammad Nizar (left) and Perak state legal advisor Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid taking the stand following discrepancies in their affidavits.
It ended today with submissions by all parties concerned, namely Sulaiman, counsel Cecil Abraham representing Zambry and Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail who stood as an intervener.
Throughout the proceedings, Abdul Gani was seen to be mainly siding with Zambry on most occasions although he was supposed to assist the court to interpret the constitution.
We do not want a chaotic situation
Sulaiman had earlier submitted that the court had the right to restore order in Perak by making such declarations as applied by the plaintiff.
"We do not want a chaotic situation as what had happened in Nigeria where the Premier Abubakar Balewa had been assassinated following a similar deadlock.
"We certainly do not want such a chaotic situation to happen here when there is a constitutional deadlock people take powers into their own hands to take such extreme action," he said.
"The court here can correct what may have been done wrong to Mohammad Nizar," Sulaiman emphasised, adding that the proper way to end the deadlock as suggested by his client was to go back to the people.
Another lawyer, Ranjit Singh submitted it was wrong for Zambry's lawyer Cecil Abraham to suggest Mohammad Nizar knew or may have been hiding the fact that he does not command the majority.
"Mohammad Nizar has no knowledge of the correspondence made by the three assemblypersons (Mohd Osman Jailu (Changkat Jering), Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang) and Hee Yit Fong (Jelapang)) with the palace.
"Hence, to assume that Mohammad Nizar may have such knowledge is wrong," he said, as his client only depended on what was reported from the media on that fateful days of Feb 4 and 5 prior to his meeting with the sultan.
Yesterday, Cecil suggested that Mohammad Nizar may have created fairy tales in denying that he had lost confidence whereelse he may have known the situation that same day.
Outside the court, Sulaiman who was assisted by a team of seven lawyers, said he was satisfied with the proceedings and was hopeful that the court would side on his client to end the deadlock.
"We have managed to deliberate the issues and noted the chaotic situation in the Perak impasse," he said.
He added that his client had always maintained that if he got the declaration, he would seek a fresh mandate to resolve the political deadlock.
Justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim will make his ruling next Monday (May 11) after hearing submissions today from Mohammad Nizar's lead counsel Sulaiman Abdullah who reminded the court that the function of the monarch was to appoint a menteri besar after the general election and to dissolve the assembly.
"Under no circumstances can the ruler decide to investigate or hold an inquiry to find who commands the majority and then appointing a new menteri besar. Such powers are not provided in the constitution," said Sulaiman (left)."I agree there is a lacuna (loophole) in our constitution (federal and Perak constitution) on the removal of the chief executive. However, we must respect the formulaters of the genius constitution in not having it there. The right way to resolve would be to bring the issue back to the assembly," he said.
Presenting the scenario in comparison to constitutions of other countries, Sulaiman said the federal constitution had withstood the test of time since the Merdeka days unlike other Commonwealth country's constitutions which had seen many amendments.
"The court has the power to repair the damage done by having the present scenario of two menteris besar by instilling Mohammad Nizar as the rightful chief executive," he said in his closing remarks.
The legal protracted battle began with the case being filed on Feb 13, where Mohammad Nizar sought a declaration that he is the rightful menteri besar and to prevent Barisan Nasional's Zambry Abdul Kadir discharging his duty.
The court's decision could bring to end the prolonged impasse in the state which was caused by the defections of three Pakatan elected representatives to become BN-friendly independents.
This situation allowed BN to have the strength of numbers in the state assembly which resulted in the Perak sultan to ask Nizar to step down and appoint Zambry as the new menteri besar in February.
However, this was not accepted by the Pakatan representatives, and they considered Zambry's appointment as unconstitutional.
Three High Courts, twice at Federal Court
This case also went through two judges before it was finally heard before justice Abdul Aziz.
Initially, the case was before Judicial Commissioner Mohd Ariff Md Yusoff in late February but he decided to recuse himself following objections that he was a PAS member and had represented the party, PKR and as well as BN previously.
It was then brought before justice Lau Bee Lan but she was dropped and the matter was fixed before before Abdul Aziz, who had just been transferred from Sarawak last month.
The case was also brought twice to the Federal Court to refer on matters pertaining to the Perak constitution. But on both occasion the apex court reverted the case to the High Court.
Following that, four days of hearing started this week and saw Mohammad Nizar (left) and Perak state legal advisor Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid taking the stand following discrepancies in their affidavits.It ended today with submissions by all parties concerned, namely Sulaiman, counsel Cecil Abraham representing Zambry and Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail who stood as an intervener.
Throughout the proceedings, Abdul Gani was seen to be mainly siding with Zambry on most occasions although he was supposed to assist the court to interpret the constitution.
We do not want a chaotic situation
Sulaiman had earlier submitted that the court had the right to restore order in Perak by making such declarations as applied by the plaintiff.
"We do not want a chaotic situation as what had happened in Nigeria where the Premier Abubakar Balewa had been assassinated following a similar deadlock.
"We certainly do not want such a chaotic situation to happen here when there is a constitutional deadlock people take powers into their own hands to take such extreme action," he said.
"The court here can correct what may have been done wrong to Mohammad Nizar," Sulaiman emphasised, adding that the proper way to end the deadlock as suggested by his client was to go back to the people.
Another lawyer, Ranjit Singh submitted it was wrong for Zambry's lawyer Cecil Abraham to suggest Mohammad Nizar knew or may have been hiding the fact that he does not command the majority."Mohammad Nizar has no knowledge of the correspondence made by the three assemblypersons (Mohd Osman Jailu (Changkat Jering), Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang) and Hee Yit Fong (Jelapang)) with the palace.
"Hence, to assume that Mohammad Nizar may have such knowledge is wrong," he said, as his client only depended on what was reported from the media on that fateful days of Feb 4 and 5 prior to his meeting with the sultan.
Yesterday, Cecil suggested that Mohammad Nizar may have created fairy tales in denying that he had lost confidence whereelse he may have known the situation that same day.
Outside the court, Sulaiman who was assisted by a team of seven lawyers, said he was satisfied with the proceedings and was hopeful that the court would side on his client to end the deadlock.
"We have managed to deliberate the issues and noted the chaotic situation in the Perak impasse," he said.
He added that his client had always maintained that if he got the declaration, he would seek a fresh mandate to resolve the political deadlock.
View Comments0