The New Straits Times
By Nik Imran Abdullah
It was reported on Monday that lawyer Rashid Zulkifli, who acted on behalf of Sultan Ismail Petra, had said that attempts by Tuanku Faris to assume the power of the sultan were not proper or lawful.
Rashid said Tuanku Faris could not preempt the Federal Court's pending decision on Sultan Ismail Petra's two petitions on questions about Tuanku Faris acting as regent.
The state council on Monday appointed Tuanku Faris to succeed his father Sultan Ismail Petra based on Article 23A of the state Constitution.
Shukri said the authority of the lawyer to act on behalf of Sultan Ismail Petra was also in dispute as no medical evidence had been produced to substantiate whether the sultan had the capacity to instruct the lawyer to represent him.
No medical evidence had been disclosed "to indicate that Sultan Ismail Petra had the capacity to understand the contents of the petitions and affidavits filed before the Federal Court", he said.
He said the laws of the state constitution had been amended and subsequently published in the state government gazette on July 22.
"Tuanku (Faris) had been advised by the Council of Advisers to issue a decree to amend the state constitution by inserting Article 23A as part of the state Constitution," he said.
Under the Government Proceedings Act, Shukri said there were no legal provisions for any aggrieved party to file an injunction against any government body, including the state Succession Council, from exercising its functions.
"If you can file an injunction against the state government or state assembly from carrying out its duties, the state authorities would not be able to, for example, pay the salaries of civil servants."
By Nik Imran Abdullah
KOTA BARU: The petitions filed by a lawyer acting on behalf of Sultan Ismail Petra carry no relevance to the appointment of Tuanku Muhammad Faris Petra as the sultan of Kelantan, a member of the state Succession Council said.
Datuk Shukri Mohamed, who is a lawyer and adviser to Tuanku Faris, said: "The appointment of Tuanku Faris by the council is a separate exercise and has no relevance to the petitions that are pending before the Federal Court," he said at Istana Balai Besar yesterday.
Datuk Shukri Mohamed, who is a lawyer and adviser to Tuanku Faris, said: "The appointment of Tuanku Faris by the council is a separate exercise and has no relevance to the petitions that are pending before the Federal Court," he said at Istana Balai Besar yesterday.
It was reported on Monday that lawyer Rashid Zulkifli, who acted on behalf of Sultan Ismail Petra, had said that attempts by Tuanku Faris to assume the power of the sultan were not proper or lawful.
Rashid said Tuanku Faris could not preempt the Federal Court's pending decision on Sultan Ismail Petra's two petitions on questions about Tuanku Faris acting as regent.
The state council on Monday appointed Tuanku Faris to succeed his father Sultan Ismail Petra based on Article 23A of the state Constitution.
Shukri said the authority of the lawyer to act on behalf of Sultan Ismail Petra was also in dispute as no medical evidence had been produced to substantiate whether the sultan had the capacity to instruct the lawyer to represent him.
No medical evidence had been disclosed "to indicate that Sultan Ismail Petra had the capacity to understand the contents of the petitions and affidavits filed before the Federal Court", he said.
He said the laws of the state constitution had been amended and subsequently published in the state government gazette on July 22.
"Tuanku (Faris) had been advised by the Council of Advisers to issue a decree to amend the state constitution by inserting Article 23A as part of the state Constitution," he said.
Under the Government Proceedings Act, Shukri said there were no legal provisions for any aggrieved party to file an injunction against any government body, including the state Succession Council, from exercising its functions.
"If you can file an injunction against the state government or state assembly from carrying out its duties, the state authorities would not be able to, for example, pay the salaries of civil servants."
No comments:
Post a Comment