The Star
by Christina Koh
IPOH: The Federal Court will be asked to decide on whether a state assembly Speaker or the Election Commission (EC) has the final say in determining the vacancy of a seat.
Ipoh High Court Judicial Commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim, in a closed courtroom yesterday morning, referred the matter to the apex court after hearing arguments on an application raised by counsel for three independent assemblymen.
The High Court was supposed to have heard two earlier applications relating to a suit brought against Speaker V. Sivakumar by Jelapang assemblyman Hee Yit Foong, Behrang assemblyman Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi and Changkat Jering assemblyman Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu.
The suit sought a declaration that the three had not resigned, as contended by Sivakumar, and that their seats were not vacant.
Both applications – one by Sivakumar asking to strike out the suit and another by six plantiffs to act as interveners – were stayed pending the Federal Court decision.
Later outside the court, the assemblymen’s lead counsel Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin said it was essential to achieve a finality of interpretation on many questions of constitutional importance.
This included, he said, the validity of the assemblymen’s letters of resignation supposedly sent to Sivakumar, the role of the EC in determining the casual vacancy of the seat and whether a by-election could be held.
However, Firoz Hussein declined to reveal the five questions to be referred because the judicial commissioner was still awaiting the final written draft for approval or amendment.
Umno legal adviser Datuk Mohd Hafarizam Harun, responding to accusations that the judge had erred in his decision, clarified that it was made under Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, read with Article 63 of the state constitution.
On complaints by Sivakumar’s lawyers that they had no warning of the questions, Mohd Hafarizam retorted that they had advance notice because the questions were based on the originating summons filed by the independents.
Sivakumar’s lead counsel Chan Kok Keong had told reporters that it was their view that Ridwan had misinterpreted the law, adding that they would file an appeal with the Court of Appeal.
Both applications – one by Sivakumar asking to strike out the suit and another by six plantiffs to act as interveners – were stayed pending the Federal Court decision.
Later outside the court, the assemblymen’s lead counsel Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin said it was essential to achieve a finality of interpretation on many questions of constitutional importance.
This included, he said, the validity of the assemblymen’s letters of resignation supposedly sent to Sivakumar, the role of the EC in determining the casual vacancy of the seat and whether a by-election could be held.
However, Firoz Hussein declined to reveal the five questions to be referred because the judicial commissioner was still awaiting the final written draft for approval or amendment.
Umno legal adviser Datuk Mohd Hafarizam Harun, responding to accusations that the judge had erred in his decision, clarified that it was made under Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, read with Article 63 of the state constitution.
On complaints by Sivakumar’s lawyers that they had no warning of the questions, Mohd Hafarizam retorted that they had advance notice because the questions were based on the originating summons filed by the independents.
Sivakumar’s lead counsel Chan Kok Keong had told reporters that it was their view that Ridwan had misinterpreted the law, adding that they would file an appeal with the Court of Appeal.
No comments:
Post a Comment