any time without any cause at all.
Also the Speaker is no longer immune. It means that Gobind Singh can
challenge in court his suspension for a year by Pandikar.
Also it means that any word "immune" in any act is meaningless because
other bodies can challenge these words.
As to a so callled lawyer, Ranjit Singh were gullible to consider
today's decision as only refering to this particular case, it will
mean that all other cases are also unique and this has never happened
in any legal history anywhere in the world.
The decision of any court is a guide for other decisions, but this
decision is so preposterous that no other nation will be able to refer
to it. Soon, all decisions in the Malaysian court will just be rubbish
and only applicable for a case by case basis.
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/lite/articles.php?id=22825
Malaysia
The end may be near for Pakatan Perak
By Edward Cheah
PUTRAJAYA, April 9 - The continuing bid by the Perak Pakatan Rakyat
(PR) to regain power in the state was hit by a near-fatal blow today
when the Federal Court ruled that the Election Commission and not the
state legislative speaker had the power to decide on vacancies in the
state assembly.
With this ruling, the three former PR state lawmakers who have become
Barisan Nasional (BN) friendly independents will be allowed to keep
their seats.
After hearing lengthy submissions by both legal teams, the judges
delivered a unanimous decision declaring that the Jelapang assemblyman
Hee Yit Foong, Behrang assemblyman Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi and Changkat
Jering assemblyman Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu, were allowed to keep their
positions as state assemblymen in accordance to the decision made by
the Election Commission.
The five-men bench consisted of President of the Court of Appeal Tan
Sri Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, Chief Judge of Malaya Justice Arifin
Zakaria, Federal Court Justices Nik Hashim Nik Ab Rahman, S. Augustine
Paul, and Court of Appeal Justice James Foong.
Lead counsel for the Election Commission Firoz Hussein Ahmad
Jamaluddin argued that the EC was an independent body given
jurisdiction by the State and Federal constitutions.
"Paragraph 6 under Section 12-3 says a casual vacancy is a vacancy
established by the EC," said Firoz Hussein.
However lead counsel for Speaker V. Sivakumar Tommy Thomas argued that
any proceedings of the State Assembly cannot be questioned in any
court, a law that also covers parliament.
"If that is not proceedings, then I don't know what is," argued Thomas
as he referred to Sivakumar's letter to the EC asking them to hold by-
elections after receiving resignation letters from both Mohd Radzi and
Mohd Osman.
During the hearing Justice James Foong however noted that by giving
the EC power to make such decisions would set a dangerous precedence
that could affect the Dewan Rakyat.
"If we allow one body to have supreme jurisdiction then we are getting
into trouble. I am talking about checks and balances. You will realise
that this will have far reaching consequences stretching to the Dewan
Rakyat," said Foong as he questioned the Attorney-General
Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail.
The five-men panel however reassured Sivakumar's counsel that the
decision will not have any prejudice in terms of the two other suits
that are currently being heard in the Kuala Lumpur High Court where
there are two suits filled against the Election Commission decision to
not hold by-elections.
Speaking to The Malaysian Insider counsel for Sivakumar, Ranjit Singh
asserted that the result of today's case only meant that the Election
Commission is the correct body to make the decision on such an issue
but the decision still can be challenged.
"Just because the Election Commission can make the decision, however.
that doesn't make it right. In any government decision, it is subject
to challenge in court," said Singh.
No comments:
Post a Comment