http://www.malaysiakini.com
Judges of far greater eminence than this judicial commissioner have often asked lawyers of great experience who are in the court for their valued views. Yet this judge thought he knew everything that he did not require any assistance from one of the top lawyers in the country.
Here’s how to judge the judge
I shall start with section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956. I have highlighted the important words for easier reading. Sub-sections (1) reads:
“(1) Notwithstanding any written law -
(a) in civil proceedings by or against the Federal Government...
(b) in civil proceedings by or against the Government of a State, a law officer ... authorised by the Legal Adviser of such State ... may appear as advocate on behalf of such Government...”.
As you can see, this sub-section is not relevant as it only applies to civil suits brought by or against the state government, not a public officer.
And sub-section (2), which is relevant on the subject of discussion, reads:
“(2) Notwithstanding any written law in civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party -
(a) by virtue of his office; or
(b) in his personal capacity, if the Attorney-General certifies in writing that it is in the public interest that such officer should be represented by a legal officer; a legal officer may appear as advocate on behalf of such officer...”.
This sub-section only applies to civil suits brought by or against a public officer. In such a case, a public officer may (the word is 'may' not 'must') be represented by a legal officer which could include the legal adviser of the state.
In any case, section 24 (2) of the Government Proceedings Act only applies to civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party. Therefore, the question is, does the speaker of the Legislative Assembly of a state hold office as a member of the public service? If he does, then he is a public officer.
Article 132, Clause (3) of the Federal Constitution states that:
“(3) The public service shall not be taken to comprise -
So now you know that the speaker and the members of the Legislative Assembly of a state are not part of the public service as they do not hold office as public officers. Therefore, section 24 (2) of the Government Proceedings Act does not apply to them.
Now we all know, except the judge because he thought he knew better ... t
Courts can’t question validity of assembly decisions
The question is, can the courts decide on the validity of the proceedings in the Legislative Assembly?
The answer is staring at us right here in the Federal Constitution. Article 72, Clauses (1) to (3) states:
“(1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.
(2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.
(3) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly of any state.”
So now you know from the Federal Constitution itself that the validity of the suspension of Zambry and his six exco members by the speaker in the state assembly cannot be questioned in any court.
From what we have read from the newspapers, it seems that there is an injunction against the speaker.
You may wonder how an injunction can be obtained against the speaker when our written constitution says that “no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the State”.
NH CHAN, who is former Court of Appeal judge, lives in Ipoh. This is an abridged version of the original article.
Source: Malaysiakini.com
*******************************************************************************
It is truly an educational subject and of importance to all Malaysians who lacks the knowledge of Malaysian law and its applications.
Hopefully, from all the problems that our nation is facing it is also a blessing in disguise, for we have the opportunities to enhance our knowledge and become better informed as a voter and to assist us to understand better our role in the choice of electing a democratic government.
Knowledge is wisdom and a virtue.
**********************************************************************************
11 comments:
Mav,
in your last para, you mentioned " ... to enhance and become better informed as a voter,...."
while it would be great if all could assimilate the provisions of the constitution and its finer twists and turns, i do not see many worthy lawyers standing up to make any notable statements. apart from Mr Karpal Singh and a very few
the numbers of brave righteous lawyers are far too few. dont they share the responsibility to see justice carried out? there is our weak link.
the voters like elsewhere, are of varying levels of education and background and many will vote with their stomach and wallets in mind.
we are not unique, this prevails everywhere
Does money makes a person arrogant?
Jefus,
Let's us be patient over the evolutionary process of education and understanding.
It takes a period for the people to go through a period of renaissance and awakening.
Artchan,
No, money do not make a person arrogant; power does and of course power can be a commodity.
Indeed, a crash course for Malaysian. It come 30 years late.
Alas, some refuse to learn and deem such as nuisane to their business. Those invovle parties with best of interest, support the flaw that they know will haunt them someday.
whoever is the judge, can even put a monkey or a pig there and it make no different as umno will have the final say on the verdict...
Moo_t,
It's not too late; this is part of evolution and awakenings.
Mave,
Arrogance is your word. No matter how strong a reasoning you have against his decision, arrogance cannot be a reasoning behind a judge's decision. Both sides are represented. Who represent better got the day and his cake to eat.
Gukita,
If you are in court and represented by my brother, your lawyer, on a charge for murdering my brother's child , and the judge is my brother's wife; tell me your side of belief in the system outcome.
The Speaker was represented by the Deputy Legal Advisor and the Legal Advisor will representing Zambry; what can you expect a deputy will so? I am surprise at your simplicity.
Gukita,
BTW, the word "arrogance" was not mine; it was NH Chan's.
no outside lawyers representing zambry? whats that dato togteher with his team er (lawyers) doing?
no wonder, the probational fella didnt even dare to have an open hearing. he knows how stupid his decision will be or simplicity to the core.
WHAT UMNO wants, UMNO gets. To hell with the law!
Mave,
Same reasoning you gave me when you defended the Speaker Sivakumar's action.. Prejudice
Post a Comment