The Star
By M. MAGESWARI
Justice Raus said the failure of the trial judge had resulted in his judgment being plainly wrong.
“The law on interpretation of our Constitution is well settled,” Justice Raus said in his judgment dated June 2, made available to the press yesterday.
Therefore, Justice Raus, who sat with Justices Zainun Ali and Ahmad Maarop, said the order by the High Court was to be set aside.
In his suit filed on Feb 13, Nizar, a PAS member, challenged the legitimacy of Dr Zambry and the new state government.
On May 11, High Court (Appellate and Special Powers) judge Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim had granted a declaratory relief to Nizar that he is still and was the Mentri Besar at all material time.
However, following an appeal by Dr Zambry, the Court of Appeal’s three-man panel had, on May 22, unanimously declared Dr Zambry the rightful Perak MB.
Justice Raus said there were case laws which held that the witholding of consent to a request to dissolve Parliament or state assembly was a royal prerogative.
“The letter dated Feb 5 authored by Nizar and the media statement by the office of His Royal Highness bear out the undisputed fact that Nizar’s request for dissolution (of assembly) was made because he had lost command and support of the majority members of the Legislative Assembly.”
He said the trial judge held that the loss of confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly on the Mentri Besar could only be determined by a vote of no confidence in the assembly.
“With utmost respect, I disagree. Under Article 16(6) of the state constitution, there is no mandatory requirement that there must be a motion of no confidence passed in the Legislative Assembly against a Mentri Besar before he ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members.
“The fact that a Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly can be established by other means,” he said.
He also said there was no option for the Mentri Besar, who did not command the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly to remain in office.
In his 77-page judgment, Justice Ahmad who conceded with Justice Raus’ conclusion, said he had no doubt that Nizar had ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the legislative assembly on Feb 5.
“Nizar’s refusal to tender his resignation and the resignation of the Executive Council was not merely a breach of convention and undemocratic, but more importantly, it contravened the clear mandatory constitutional command under Article 16(6) and, therefore, unconstitutional.”
By M. MAGESWARI
PUTRAJAYA: The appointment of Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir as the Perak Mentri Besar was made in accordance to the Perak Constitution and established democratic practice and convention, the Court of Appeal held.
Justice Raus Sharif said in his written judgment that the High Court judge had failed to properly appreciate the evidence adduced before him when he declared Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as the valid Perak Mentri Besar.
In his 49-page judgment, Justice Raus said the trial judge had not appreciated the undisputed facts and chronology of events which led to the appointment of Dr Zambry as the MB by the Sultan of Perak.
Justice Raus Sharif said in his written judgment that the High Court judge had failed to properly appreciate the evidence adduced before him when he declared Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as the valid Perak Mentri Besar.
In his 49-page judgment, Justice Raus said the trial judge had not appreciated the undisputed facts and chronology of events which led to the appointment of Dr Zambry as the MB by the Sultan of Perak.
Justice Raus said the failure of the trial judge had resulted in his judgment being plainly wrong.
“The law on interpretation of our Constitution is well settled,” Justice Raus said in his judgment dated June 2, made available to the press yesterday.
Therefore, Justice Raus, who sat with Justices Zainun Ali and Ahmad Maarop, said the order by the High Court was to be set aside.
In his suit filed on Feb 13, Nizar, a PAS member, challenged the legitimacy of Dr Zambry and the new state government.
On May 11, High Court (Appellate and Special Powers) judge Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim had granted a declaratory relief to Nizar that he is still and was the Mentri Besar at all material time.
However, following an appeal by Dr Zambry, the Court of Appeal’s three-man panel had, on May 22, unanimously declared Dr Zambry the rightful Perak MB.
Justice Raus said there were case laws which held that the witholding of consent to a request to dissolve Parliament or state assembly was a royal prerogative.
“The letter dated Feb 5 authored by Nizar and the media statement by the office of His Royal Highness bear out the undisputed fact that Nizar’s request for dissolution (of assembly) was made because he had lost command and support of the majority members of the Legislative Assembly.”
He said the trial judge held that the loss of confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly on the Mentri Besar could only be determined by a vote of no confidence in the assembly.
“With utmost respect, I disagree. Under Article 16(6) of the state constitution, there is no mandatory requirement that there must be a motion of no confidence passed in the Legislative Assembly against a Mentri Besar before he ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members.
“The fact that a Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly can be established by other means,” he said.
He also said there was no option for the Mentri Besar, who did not command the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly to remain in office.
In his 77-page judgment, Justice Ahmad who conceded with Justice Raus’ conclusion, said he had no doubt that Nizar had ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the legislative assembly on Feb 5.
“Nizar’s refusal to tender his resignation and the resignation of the Executive Council was not merely a breach of convention and undemocratic, but more importantly, it contravened the clear mandatory constitutional command under Article 16(6) and, therefore, unconstitutional.”
No comments:
Post a Comment