Penggantungan MB Perak & 6 Exco: V. Sivakumar guna kuasa yang salah atau salah guna kuasa?

-
Mahkamah putuskan penggantungan MB Perak tidak sah
16/04/2009 12:17 pm

PUTRAJAYA 16 April - Mahkamah Persekutuan di sini hari ini memutuskan penggantungan Menteri Besar Perak, Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir dan enam Exco Kerajaan Negeri yang dibuat oleh Speaker, V. Sivakumar adalah batal dan tidak sah kerana seorang speaker tidak ada kuasa berbuat demikian.

Sumber: Utusan Malaysia, 16 April 2009.

+++++++++++++++

Blog Kembara Politik telah menerima komen berbentuk pandangan pada 14 April 2009 oleh seorang ahli akademik bernama Prof Madya Dr Abdul Rani Bin Kamarudin berhubung isu penggantungan MB Perak Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir dan 6 EXCO Kerajaan Negeri Perak. Untuk membaca komen asal beliau, pembaca bolehlah merujuk di bahagian komen, di SINI.

Berikut diperturunkan komen dan pandangan Dr Abdul Rani berhubung isu penggantungan MB dan 6 EXCO Kerajaan Negeri Perak:

Hari ini (14 April 2009) Yang Amat Arif Hakim-Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan (Federal Court) yang diketuai oleh Presiden Makamah Rayuan (ambil perhatian bahawa Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan juga adalah Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan) Tan Sri Alauddin Mohd Sherif, Hakim Besar Malaya Datuk Arifin Zakaria, Datuk Nik Hashim Nik Ab Rahman, Datuk S. Augustine Paul dan Datuk Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin sepakat bahawa Mahkamah Persekutuan mempunyai bidang kuasa mendengar dan menentukan samada keputusan penggantunggan Dato’ Zambry dan EXCOnya dari menghadiri sidang itu mengikut undang-undang atau tidak (sah atau tidak). Sila lawati:

http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=404155

April 14, 2009 20:13 PM

Zambry Used Correct Procedure to Challenge Speaker's Suspension - Federal Court

PUTRAJAYA, April 14 (Bernama) -- The Federal Court ruled today that Perak Menteri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and his six state executive councilors had used the right procedure to challenge their suspension from attending the State Legislative Assembly sittings by Speaker V. Sivakumar. - BERNAMA

Sebelum ini (awal April) mahkamah telah menolak bantahan awal bahawa Mahkamah Persekutuan tiada bidang kuasa menentukan isu peruntukkan dalam perlembagaan negeri hanya isu Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Bantahan ini bagaimana pun tidak berjaya kerana Mahkamah Persekutuan tidak bersetuju dengan keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan. Mahkamah Persekutuan sebelum ini memulangkan “paku buah keras” kepada Mahkamah Rayuan yang memutuskan bahawa peruntukkan perlembagaan negeri bukan sesuatu yang boleh dirujuk kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan.

Dari segi ini, pada pandangan itu ada betulnya, namun tidak tepat kerana Mahkamah Rayuan terlupa bahawa bidang kuasa Mahkamah Persekutuan meliputi bukan sahaja bidang kuasa Rayuan (appellate) tetapi termasuk bidang kuasa-bidang kuasa seperti Penyelian (supervisory), bidang kuasa semakan (revisionary) dan bidangkuasa asal (original). Malahan bidang kuasa Mahkamah Persekutuan merangkumi dan melewati (goes beyond) apa-apa bidang kuasa yang terdapat pada Mahkamah Tinggi mahu pun Mahkamah Rayuan. Maksud saya (Dr Abdul Rani), Mahkamah Persekutuan tidak sekadar (walau pun kebiasaannya) mendengar rayuan dari mahkamah Rayuan (Court of Appeal) seperti difahami ramai. Lihat Courts of Judicature Act 1964:

http://www.kehakiman.gov.my/legislation/Court_Of_The_Judicature_Act.shtml

Tidak lama kemudian (9 April 2009), Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan lagi bahawa Suruhanjaya Pilhanraya (dibawah Akta Pilihanraya) adalah kuasa menentu samada terdapatnya kerusi kosong DUN(casual vacancy) bukannya Speaker.

Kini pula (14 April 2009) , Mahkamah Persekutuan sekali lagi memutuskan bahawa Mahkamah Persekutuan ada bidang kuasa mendengar dan menentukan samada Speaker Sivakumar mempunyai kuasa untuk menggantung tugas MB (Dato’ Dr Zambry) dan EXCOnya selama 18 bulan dari menghadiri sidang DUN. Di bawah Artikel 44 Undang-Undang Tubuh Negeri Perak (Perak State Constitution) Zambry dan 6 ahli EXCO lain -- Zainol Fadzi Paharuddin, Datuk Ramly Zahari, Hamidah Osman, Datuk Saarani Mohamad, Mohd Zahir Abdul Khalid dan Dr Mah Hang Soon memohon deklarasi penggantungan mereka adalah tidak sah dan batal (null and void).

Halangan demi halangan (melalui bantahan awal) Sivakumar bahawa Mahkamah Persekutuan tiada bidang kuasa untuk mendengar dan menentukan kuasa Speaker ternyata gagal. Pada pandangan/hujah mereka, Mahkamah (Mahkamah Rendah, Tinggi, Rayuan, Persekutuan) tiada bidang kuasa mendengar dan menentukan sama ada tindak tanduk Speaker yang kononnya kebal berdasarkan Artikel 72 Undang-Undang Tubuh Negeri Perak (Perak State Constitution) yang menyatakan bahawa kesahan (validity) apa-apa prosiding di DUN tidak boleh dipersoalkan di mana-mana mahkamah pun.

Isunya kini ialah, setelah bantahan awal V. Sivakumar gagal, persoalannya sekarang adalah sama ada V. Sivakumar mempunyai kuasa untuk menggantung MB Dato’ Dr Zambry dan EXCOnya. Dalam hal ini apakah "prosiding" menjadi isu penting?Jika Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan Speaker tiada kuasa menggantung MB Dato’ Dr Zambry dan EXCOnya, bermakna masalah besar akan menimpa Speaker kerana “pandai-pandai” menggantung mereka-mereka tersebut dengan menggunakan kuasa yang salah atau salah guna kuasa (apa bezanya –fikir sendiri). Di bawah Kanun Keseksaan (dibawah), jika sabit kesalahan, hukumannya (termasuk mereka-mereka yang bersekongkol juga) adalah berat:

http://www.agc.gov.my/agc/oth/Akta/Vol.%2012/Act%20574.pdf

Offences against the authority of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Rulers or Yang di-Pertua Negeri.

121B. Whoever compasses, imagines, invents or intends the deposition or deprivation of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong from the sovereignty of Malaysia or the deprivation or deposition of the Ruler, his heirs or successors, or of the Yang di-Pertua Negeri from the rule of a State, or the overawing by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force the Government of Malaysia or of any State, shall be punished with imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

Abetting offences under section 121A or 121B.
121C. whoever abets the commission of any of the offences punishable by section 121A or 121B shall be punished with the punishment provided for the said offences.

Assaulting Member of Parliament, etc., with intent to compel or restrain the exercise of any lawful power.

124. Whoever, with the intention of inducing or compelling or attempting to induce or compel a member of Parliament or of any Legislative Assembly or of any State Executive Council to exercise or refrain from exercising in any manner the lawful powers of such member, assaults or wrongfully restrains, or attempts wrongfully to restrain, or overawes by means of criminal force, or the show of criminal force, or attempts so to overawe, such member shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Maka, apakah pergantunngan MB Dato’ Dr Zambry dan EXCOnya sah? Rujuk pandangan blog OutSyed the Box:

http://syedsoutsidethebox.blogspot.com/2009/02/deterministic-chaos-in-perak.html

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2009

Deterministic Chaos in Perak

Here is a news report from the New Straits Times today:

Karpal stumped by Sivakumar's decision

IPOH: Pakatan Rakyat members are shaking their heads in disbelief over the suspension of Menteri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and his six exco members by Speaker V. Sivakumar for 18 months and 12 months respectively.

Even DAP chairman Karpal Singh, a prominent lawyer, is stumped by Sivakumar's decision to order the suspension. Karpal told a press conference at Parliament House in Kuala Lumpur Sivakumar must call for the assembly to meet to endorse his decision to suspend Zambry and six executive councilors.

He said Sivakumar's decision must be endorsed by the house.

Several PR lawmakers here said the move was totally unexpected as they had painstakingly gone through the state constitution and the assembly's Standing Orders prior to Wednesday's hearing before the Rights and Privileges Committee.

"I was shocked upon hearing Sivakumar's decision. We had discussed about this (possibility of suspending Zambry and his exco members) and strongly advised against it. "By doing so, we have fallen into our own trap, akin to stepping on a banana peel planted by ourselves."I honestly do not know whose advice he (Sivakumar) took before making up his mind," said a PR lawmaker.

Karpal’s suggestion that Sivakumar should put the suspension to the Assembly first is echoed on both sides. Perak UMNO Youth secretary Hang Tuah Din cited Rule 72(2) of the Standing Orders stating: “when the House was not in session, a state representative could complain to the Speaker of any offences. The Speaker, if satisfied that the offence appeared to have been committed, could refer it to the Rights and Privileges Committee. In turn, the committee must report it to the Assembly”

“It is clear he (Sivakumar) should have referred the matter to the Assembly, and not made a decision,” Hang Tuah told a press conference.

Hang Tuah Din’s statement tallies with Karpal’s view.

According to another comment, by not following the proper procedure, the Speaker has become “the investigator, the prosecutor and the judge at the same time” when such a decision by the Privileges Committees should have been referred to the House.

The Perak Assembly does not meet until April. Logically the Speaker cannot suspend any member of the Assembly until then. Pending the vote, the MB and the six Excos are not suspended. And when the Assembly sits in April, the MB and the six Excos targeted by Sivakumar must also have the right to vote over their own suspension. Otherwise it is as good as a confirmed suspension already and a mockery of the whole process.

(Imagine a situation where a Speaker goes berserk and suspends say 28 members of the Assembly. Why not? If the Speaker can suspend six Excos and the MB, why not suspend 12, 18 or 28 members of the Assembly?)

More importantly if you suspend an MB and six Exco members, how does the State Government function? How does this help the people of Perak? No matter how tasty or distasteful, the State of Perak and its people do not have an effective Government to rule its affairs. Is this what the Speaker Sivakumar really aims to do?

Granted that Sivakumar has a serious axe to grind with the new MB over the change in the Perak State Government. But that does not justify his present action. Suspending an MB and six Exco members on some excuse that they showed contempt to the State Legislature appears frivolous.

Again I can smell the presence of His Ineptitudeness here.

The suggestion that the MB and his Exco take this matter to Court to set aside the suspension imposed by the Speaker is sound. It must be pursued urgently.

If the Court sets aside the Speaker’s action, it is possible that it will be Sivakumar who is in contempt. This must be thought through extremely very carefully but Sivakumar can also be held in breach of other laws.

In my view treason against the Sultan is not an issue because Sivakumar has not denied that Zambry Kadir is the new MB of Perak. He recognizes the Sultan’s appointment of Zambry as the new MB. He has merely suspended the MB and six Excos based on procedure which does not seem right.

Lihat juga:

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Friday/Frontpage/2484884/Article/index_html

http://lenggongvalley.blogspot.com/2009/02/perak-pakatan-snared-in-own-trap-over.html

Sidang bawah pokok pula?

Berkenaan Fasal XXXVI (1) Undang-Undang Tubuh Negeri Perak jelas bahawa Sultan mempunyai kuasa dan hanya bertanggungjawab mengadakan paling tidak satu sidang setiap 6 bulan - tempoh ini pun belum tamat dan akan hanya tamat mengikut kata panel-panel itu pada - 15 Mei 2009. [Lihat komen saya (Dr Abdul Rani) terhadap rancangan “Hujah, NTV9” pada 9.30 – 10.30 malam siaran langsung dari UiTM – “Krisis Perak” pada 31 Mac 2009].

http://kembarapolitik.blogspot.com/2009/04/ulasan-hujah-tv9-krisis-di-perak-oleh.html

Perkara XXXVI (1) Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Perak Darul Ridzuan memperuntuk “DYMM hendaklah dari semasa ke semasa memanggil bersidang Dewan Negeri itu dan tidaklah boleh membiarkan tempoh enam bulan berlalu di antara perjumpaan yang akhir lepas dalam satu persidangan dengan tarikh yang ditetapkan bagi perjumpaan yang pertama dalam persidangan yang di hadapan.”

Pun begitu, untuk sidang itu sah, suatu notis hendaklah diisukan oleh setiausaha DUN yang mana tidak dibuat. Notis ini adalah mandatori (wajib) sepertimana yang saya faham dari perbincangan panel2.

Pun begitu, PT 1 (Perintah Tetap DUN) mengatakan “maka Setiausaha Dewan hendaklah membacakan Pemasyhuran DYMM Seri Sultan Perak Darul Ridzuan memanggil mesyuarat”.

Maka Sultan mempunyai kata akhir (ultimate say) dan jika belum diperkenankan Sultan, pada pandangan saya jika sidang dibuat di Dewan pun adalah tidak sah apatah lagi di tempat yang tidak diwartakan iaitu dibawah pokok?

“PT 10 (1) menyatakan “ Penggal Dewan hendaklah diadakan pada waktu dan tempat sebagaimana yang ditetapkan oleh DYMM Seri Sultan Perak Darul Ridzuan dari semasa ke semasa melalui perisytiharan dalam Warta,”

Fasal XXXVI (1) Undan-Undang Tubuh Negeri Perak memberi Sultan kata akhir (ultimate say) sama ada sidang DUN boleh dibuat atau tidak. Dalam hal ini, saya (Dr Abdul Rani) tidak nampak relevannya perbezaan sama ada sesi DUN ditangguhkan, prorogue atau sebab dibubarkan seperti mana pandangan Prof Dr Shad bahawa jika ditangguhkan perkenan Sultan tidak diperlukan lagi. Bukankah Sultan mempunyai kata akhir (ultimate say, veto) di bawah Perkara XXXVI (1) Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Perak Darul Ridzuan untuk memerintah agar sidang yang ditangguhkanpun supaya tidak dibuat sehingga arahan selanjutnya dari Baginda Sultan. Tindakan “mengunci” adalah bukti Sultan tidak perkenankan sidang itu dibuat.

Maka jika tiada perkenan Sultan, jangan nak kata sidang DUN di dewan itu boleh sah, apatah lagi di bawah pokok.

Baru-baru ini, MB Perak Dato’ Dr Zambry ada menyatakan di surat khabar (13 April 2009) beliau akan meminta perkenan Sultan untuk mengadakan sidang DUN dan menasihati Speaker DUN supaya bertindak mengikut undang-undang.

Prof Madya Dr Abdul Rani Bin Kamarudin
Pensyarah Undang-Undang,
Jabatan Undang-Undang Awam,
IIUM
+