The Sun
Judge Abdul Aziz's findings:
» He disagreed with the submission of Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, as intervenor, that there were only two circumstances under which a mentri besar could request for the dissolution of the legislative assembly.
"The A-G submitted that a mentri besar can only request for dissolution when the life term of the assembly comes to an end, that is under Article 36(2) and the other one is when he ceases to have command of the majority.
» He disagreed with the submission of Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, as intervenor, that there were only two circumstances under which a mentri besar could request for the dissolution of the legislative assembly.
"The A-G submitted that a mentri besar can only request for dissolution when the life term of the assembly comes to an end, that is under Article 36(2) and the other one is when he ceases to have command of the majority.
"I do not agree with this. Under Article 36 of the Perak Constitution, there are unlimited circumstances for the menteri besar to request for dissolution from the Sultan, and it is up to the mentri besar to choose his time (to request for dissolution)."
» He also disagreed with the A-G and Dr Zambry Abd Kadir's earlier submission that Nizar was deemed to have resigned from the office of mentri besar although he (Nizar) refused to do so.
"The A-G and the respondent argued that the word 'shall resign' in Article 16(6) meant that it is mandatory that the menteri besar must resign.
"What if the mentri besar refuses to resign? However mandatory it is, the provision cannot be interpreted to mean that the mentri besar is deemed to resign," said Abdul Aziz, who suggested that the article be amended to rectify the lacuna in Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution.
» On the issue of the affidavit by Perak State Legal Adviser Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid, Abdul Aziz ruled that he was not a neutral and impartial witness.
"It was his own admission that he was instructed by the respondent's counsel to affirm the affidavit. The word instructed is a very strong word.
"To me, he is not a neutral or impartial witness; his testimony was coloured by the instruction that he received," said Abdul Aziz.
» He preferred Nizar's version of what transpired during the audience with the Sultan of Perak at Istana Kinta on Feb 4, that he asked for a dissolution under Article 36 (2) for general purpose than Ahmad Kamal's evidence that the request was made under Article 16(6) due to loss of confidence.
He said Kamal had testified he had no personal interest and nothing to benefit from the case but he would take Kamal's evidence with a "pinch of salt".
He said Kamal testified under cross-examination that he did not make any effort to contact Nizar to correct the Proclamation of Dissolution that Nizar took with him when asking for dissolution from the Sultan of Perak.
(In the Proclamation of Dissolution draft, Nizar asked for dissolution under Article 36(2) for dissolution under general provision. Kamal said Nizar was asking for a dissolution under Article 16 (6) stating loss of confidence).
Abdul Aziz said Kamal read the Proclamation and he should have "realised the mistake" but made no correction.
"I would have thought he would contact Nizar to correct or suggest correction before presenting to the Sultan."
Abdul Aziz said Kamal testified he did not take the course of action, saying that the Sultan had not decided yet.
He said Kamal is state legal adviser and his duty is to advise on all legal matters referred to him, including advising Nizar on the draft of Proclamation.
» He also disagreed with the A-G and Dr Zambry Abd Kadir's earlier submission that Nizar was deemed to have resigned from the office of mentri besar although he (Nizar) refused to do so.
"The A-G and the respondent argued that the word 'shall resign' in Article 16(6) meant that it is mandatory that the menteri besar must resign.
"What if the mentri besar refuses to resign? However mandatory it is, the provision cannot be interpreted to mean that the mentri besar is deemed to resign," said Abdul Aziz, who suggested that the article be amended to rectify the lacuna in Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution.
» On the issue of the affidavit by Perak State Legal Adviser Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid, Abdul Aziz ruled that he was not a neutral and impartial witness.
"It was his own admission that he was instructed by the respondent's counsel to affirm the affidavit. The word instructed is a very strong word.
"To me, he is not a neutral or impartial witness; his testimony was coloured by the instruction that he received," said Abdul Aziz.
» He preferred Nizar's version of what transpired during the audience with the Sultan of Perak at Istana Kinta on Feb 4, that he asked for a dissolution under Article 36 (2) for general purpose than Ahmad Kamal's evidence that the request was made under Article 16(6) due to loss of confidence.
He said Kamal had testified he had no personal interest and nothing to benefit from the case but he would take Kamal's evidence with a "pinch of salt".
He said Kamal testified under cross-examination that he did not make any effort to contact Nizar to correct the Proclamation of Dissolution that Nizar took with him when asking for dissolution from the Sultan of Perak.
(In the Proclamation of Dissolution draft, Nizar asked for dissolution under Article 36(2) for dissolution under general provision. Kamal said Nizar was asking for a dissolution under Article 16 (6) stating loss of confidence).
Abdul Aziz said Kamal read the Proclamation and he should have "realised the mistake" but made no correction.
"I would have thought he would contact Nizar to correct or suggest correction before presenting to the Sultan."
Abdul Aziz said Kamal testified he did not take the course of action, saying that the Sultan had not decided yet.
He said Kamal is state legal adviser and his duty is to advise on all legal matters referred to him, including advising Nizar on the draft of Proclamation.
No comments:
Post a Comment