Ulasan Prof Dr Rani Kamaruddin
Pensyarah Undang-Undang
UIAM
Mengenai Krisis Politik di Perak ( 4 )
Ulasan ini dihantar oleh Prof Dr Rani ke blog Penghuni Gua. Penghuni Gua siarkan dilaman utama bagi kepentingan kita bersama agar memahami dengan sepenuhnya kemelut tersebut dan mungkin kita semua boleh berfikir akedah menyelesaikannya.
Ulasannya seperti berikut :
Prof Shad antara lainnya;
(i)akur bahawa adalah hak Sultan untuk atau tidak membubarkan DUN;
(ii)akur adanya ruang dimana undi tidak percaya boleh juga diraih diluar sidang DUN;
(iii)akur bahawa tindakan wakil-wakil rakyat dan DUN melompat adalah dibenarkan oleh Undang2;
(iv)terbuka (tanpa memberikan jawapan) dalam isu samada Sultan mempunyai kuasa memecat MB Dato Seri Md Nizar; Prof Shad tidakpun mengatakan pemecatan itu tidak sah;
(v)akur bahawa MB dilantik oleh Sultan mengikut pandanganya seorang yang berkemungkinan (likely) mendapat sokongan majoriti;
Prof Shad bagaimanapun tidak memberikan apa-apa jawapan samada perlantikkan MB Dato Zambri sah – tapi Prof Aziz kata tak salah (isisi undang2?) cuma tidak wajar. Berbalik kepada apa yang Prof Shad akur – Sultan melantik MB mengikut pandangannya (budibicara/ kewajaraanya) siapa yang berkemungkinan (likely) meraih sokongan majoriti ADUN – perlu ambil perhatian bahawa Prof Dr Shad (did not rule out) tidak menolak kemungkinan meraih undi sokongan majoriti diluar sidang itu sah;
Ujar Prof Dr Aziz Bari;
“Seperti yang saya berulangkali katakan tindakan sultan melantik Zambry itu tidak salah tetapi saya fikir ia tidak wajar di dalam senario di Perak kerana ia jelas tidak menyelesaikan masalah. Malah kita mendapat masalah baru yang kemudiannya memaksa sidang diadakan di bawah pokok,” ujarnya
Komen saya (Dr Abdul Rani) > untuk mengatakan perlantikan Dato Zambri itu tidak salah, pemecatan MB Dato Seri Md Nizar mestilah terlebih diterima sebagai betul dan sah,
Ujarnya lagi;
"Bagaimana pun Aziz bersetuju bahawa Sultan tidak boleh diseret ke mahkamah kerana baginda masih kebal di dalam mahkamah biasa. Katanya sultan hanya boleh diseret ke Mahkamah Khas yang bagaimanapun hanya menangani soal-soal peribadi seperti gagal membayar hutang dan seumpamanya. Meskipun begitu beliau tidak nampak mengapa kritikan tidak boleh dibuat."
Persoalan saya (Dr Abdul Rani) – jika sudah tidak salah perlantikkan MB Dato Zambri – tak ke sakit (kesalahan jenayah) Speaker DUN Perak dan kuncu2nya bila menggantungkan mereka dari menghadiri sidang DUN dan menjalankan tugas mereka kononya tindakan mereka menyalahi peratutan Tetap DUN. Keputusan Sultan melantik MB Dato Zambri dan exxconyakan tidak boleh dicabar dalam tugas rasminya seperti Prof Dr Aziz sendiri ujar? Tambahan pula, kata Prof Dr Shad, Speaker DUN tidak boleh menghukum ADUN tanpa mendapat pengesahan ADUN disidang DUN – maka penggantungan itu pun tak sah.
- persoalan saya (Dr Abd Rani) kepada Naspazi > bukankah itu semuanya menggunakan kuasa yang salah atau salah guna kuasa bila Dato Zambry dan Exconya digantung?
(vi) mengajukan soalan (tanpa memberikan jawapan) samada Speaker DUN mempunyai kuasa mengatasi Suruhanjaya Pilihanraya yakni apakah Suruhanjaya Pilihanraya mempunyai kuasa atau tidak mempertikaikan keputusan Speaker. Prof Shad tidakpun mengatakan Speaker berkuasa keatas Suruhanjaya Pilihanraya; Bukanklah ini bermakna ada kemungkinannya?
(vii) Mengajukan soalan (tanpa memberikan jawapan) samada mencabar (saman) keputusan Sultan suatu perbuatan derhaka?
Komen saya: jika jawapannya adalah “ya”> bukankah ianya suatu kesalahan samada dibuat atas kapasiti individu ataupun parti politik?
(viii) Bolehkah Sultan (tanpa memberikan jawapan) disaman dimahkamah terhadap tugas/ keputusan rasmi Baginda? Prof Dr Shad tidak kata bolehpun dan juga tidak kata tidak boleh. Karpal Singh kata boleh (tapi sampai sekarang beiau tidak menyaman Sultan –malahan telah didakwa dibawah Akta Hasutan.
> Prof Aziz menyatakan Sultan tetap kebal kecuali dalam tugas peribadinya sahaja – maka apahalnya menyaman Sultan? Bukankah ujar Prof Dr Aziz bermaksud Sultan tidak boleh cabar (disaman)?
(ix) Sidang DUN boleh dibuat ditempat lain –
- komen saya (Dr Abdul Rani) ialah Sultan tidak boleh membiarkan tiadanya sidang dibuat melebihi 6 bulan. Bermakna kuasa mengadakan sidang sebenarnya (ultimately – kata putus) ditangan Sultan. Maka jika Sultan tidak membenarkan sidang dibuat lagi – apakah sidang dibawah pokok itu boleh ditakrifkan halal atau “perhimpunan haram”?
Pada pendapat saya, disini Prof Shad (with due respect –saya belajar Undang2 Perlembagaan bahawa Prof Shad sebenarnya ditahun 1984 –ditahun satu) telah “khilaf” (erred). Saya amat menghormati pandangan Prof Dr Shad bekas guru saya, dan begitu juga Prof Dr Aziz, rakan sejabatan dan seFakulti. Hormat-menghormati pandangan suatu sama lain adalah lumrah – tak perlu emosi. Namun, pendapat saya berbeza dalam isu ini – sidang DUN bawah pokok bertentangan dengan Undang2 Tubuh Negeri Perak kerana tidak mendapat perkenan Sultan bahkan dilarang diadakan sama sekali –sebab itulah setiausaha DUN itu “mengunci” Bangunan DUN.
Penghujungnya, adalah tersasar untuk seseorang mengatakan bahawa pendapat itu bias (senget pandangannya) hanya kerana pendapatnya tidak memihak kepadanya tetapi “terpuji” jika memihak kepadanya. Prof Dr Shad pun dah mengatakan walaupun dengan kekesalan (unfortunately) bahawa lompat melompat adalah sah dan dibenarkan oleh Perlembagaan.
Apakah Naspazi boleh persetujui dengan saya bekenaan perkara-perkara (statement of agreed facts) berikut?;
(i)lompat itu sah (Prof Shad);
(ii)Perlantikkan MB Dato Zambri sah (Prof Aziz)
(iii)MB dilantik oleh Sultan mengikut pandangannya
(budibicara/ kewajarannya) seorang yang berkemungkinan (likely) mendapat sokongan majorit (Prof Shad ia, namun Prof Aziz juga?)
(iv)Penggantunggan Dato Zambri dan exconya tidak sah (Prof Shad kerana perlu mendapat kelulusan semasa sidang DUN)
(v)Bubar DUN adalah prerogative Sultan (Prof Shad)
(vi) Sltan tidak boleh dicabar dalam tugas rasminya (Prof Aziz)
Prof Mdya Dr Abdul Rani Bin Kamarudin
Pensyarah (Public law Dept) IIUM
hujah balas kepada hujah balas Naspazi
Dibawah – petikan apa yang dinyatakan Prof Dr Shad Faruqi;
http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/19676/84/
AN AVALANCHE OF LEGAL ISSUES
Posted by admin
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 08:22
REFLECTING ON THE LAW By SHAD SALEEM FARUQI (The Star)
The legal skirmishes triggered by the four Perak assemblymen who defected have sullied the reputations of several hallowed institutions and opened up new legal frontiers where no Malaysian has up to now travelled.
THE four Perak Assemblymen who slithered down the treacherous slope of defections could not have anticipated the political and legal avalanche they have triggered. The punches and counter-punches and the legal skirmishes over issues of procedure and substance are opening up new legal frontiers where no Malaysian has up to now travelled.
Several constitutional institutions, including the state’s Sultan, the Election Commission, the Attorney-General’s office, the police, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commis¬sion, the State Speaker and the Secretary to the State Assembly, have become embroiled in the controversy and have had their good names sullied.
The judiciary has not been spared.
When the case first reached the courts, a Judicial Commissioner gave judgments that defy understanding. To have a Judicial Commissioner and not a senior High Court judge presiding over this novel constitutional case was indeed disappointing.
Hearings were not in open court but in chambers. The Speaker of the Perak Assembly was declared to be a public servant despite indisputable legal evidence that he is exempted from such a definition. The Speaker was not allowed to be represented by private lawyers. He was not even allowed to represent himself!
There was an unbelievable ruling that no conflict of interest existed in the state legal adviser representing the unwilling Speaker against the state government!
These initial judicial missteps were fortunately corrected on appeal but they left a bad feeling and sullied the reputation of a hallowed institution whose resurgence we were all praying for.
Defections: As opposed to the stability of the American presidential system, governments in parliamentary democracies often rise and fall because of political defections. Unfortunately, the right to disassociate and re-associate is part of the fundamental right to association under the Federal Constitution’s Article 10(1)(c) and the decision in Nordin Salleh (1992).
We need a constitutional amendment to Articles 10(1) and 48(6). There are eminent legal models available in other Commonwealth countries. MPs and Assemblymen who hop midstream should be required to vacate their seats and seek a fresh mandate from their constituency.
Dissolution: The right to refuse a premature dissolution is an undoubted constitutional discretion of the Sultan under Article 18(2)(b) and 36(2) of the Perak Constitution. We have instances in Kelantan in 1977 and in Sabah in the 90s when requests by MBs for premature dissolution were politely turned down. Judicial authority in Datuk Amir Kahar (1995) confirms the non-reviewability of this discretion.
Even if it is argued that the Sultan was bound by constitutional convention to pay heed to the advice of the then beleaguered MB, it must be noted that constitutional conventions are not law. They are rules of political morality that are non-enforceable in a court: Government of Kelantan v Government of Malaya (1963).
Dismissal of MB: This poses more complex issues. Article 16(7) of the Perak Constitution implies that the Sultan has no power to dismiss an MB. An MB’s cessation of office must come about by resignation under Article 16(6):
“If the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then, unless at his request His Royal Highness dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council.”
The Sarawak case of Stephen Kalong Ningkan v Tun Abang Haji Openg & Tawi Sli (1966) ruled that lack of confidence may be demonstrated only by a vote of no-confidence in the Council Negeri. Factors outside the Council Negeri are irrelevant. The High Court will have to decide whether to follow Ningkan or to distinguish it on many grounds, among them, that in Sarawak in 1966 the Assembly was in session when the Governor sacked Ningkan. In Perak, the Assembly was in adjournment and a vote on the floor was, therefore, not possible.
The High Court may also note that Article 16(6) does not make any explicit reference to a vote of no-confidence in the Assembly. It uses the words “confidence of the majority of the members of the Assem¬bly”.
The Privy Council in Adegbenro v Akintola (1963) and the Sabah High Court in Datuk Amir Kahar (1995) have held that factors other than a vote of no confidence can be taken note of in determining the question of confidence, and that there is no limitation to the consideration of factors outside the Assembly.
There was an additional complication. The Speaker of the Assembly declared that the hoppers had ceased to be members of the Assembly. With them excluded, Nizar disputed the loss of confidence and therefore refused to resign under Article 16(6).
In such a stalemate, did the Sultan have a residual, prerogative power to dismiss Nizar? In addition could His Highness rely on section 47 of the Interpretation Act that the power to appoint includes the power to dismiss? The court has to decide.
Appointment of MB: This is a discretionary function but is controlled and structured by constitutional guidelines. The Sultan has to appoint someone who, in his opinion, is likely to command the confidence of the State Assembly.
If there is a clear-cut leader with the requisite numbers, the discretion of the Ruler is merely nominal. But in an Assembly where no one has a clear majority, (a “hung Assembly”) the Sultan’s personal discretion acquires great significance.
In this case, the Sultan was obviously of the view that Zamri had the requisite numbers and therefore swore him in. The Sultan relied on face to face, separate interviews with the actors involved. The court will have to determine whether this manner of determination is legally justified. Along with the above contentious issues there is a whole range of controversies that the Perak crisis has engendered.
Powers of Sultan: Can a Sultan be sued in the courts for his official acts? Is a threat to sue tantamount to sedition or treason?
Speaker’s powers: If open-dated resignation letters have no effect, as was determined in Datuk Ong Kee Hui v Sinyium (1983), can the Speaker still rely on them to declare that four Assembly seats have fallen vacant?
Is the Election Commission bound by the rulings of the Speaker on this point or can it decide on the issue independently?
The Speaker of an Assembly is indeed the master of proceedings and procedures in his Assembly, but does his power go so far as to declare seats vacant and to deprive members of their legal right to attend? Is his decision absolutely unimpeachable in any court?
In India, courts do not refrain from pronouncing on the validity of decisions in the House if human rights or constitutional issue are involved. If the Assembly was not under prorogation but merely under adjournment, can the Speaker convene it on his own without an order from the Sultan?
Who must issue the summons, the Speaker or the Secretary to the Assembly? Does the Speaker have the power to dismiss a disobedient Assembly Secretary?
Privileges committee: The committee has undoubted powers to try members for contempt. But its decisions are not final and any recommendation to dismiss, suspend or discipline members must be confirmed by the Assembly.
Immunity of members: There is no legal bar to the Assembly meeting outside its official premises. The constitutional issue is whether those, including the police, who obstructed the Assembly from meeting are liable to punishment by the Assembly for contempt?
Likewise, are the police and the Anti-Corruption Commission guilty of serious breach of the privileges of the Assembly by questioning the Speaker and Privileges Committee members for their official conduct?
These are serious triable issues. Our answers to them must not be based on expediency or political partisanship but on well established principles of constitutional law.
Dr Shad Faruqi is Professor of Law at Universiti Teknologi MARA.
25 March 2009 11:17
No comments:
Post a Comment