Saturday, April 18, 2009
Lawyer setengah lepas enam/ Half past six?
Kalau Mahkamah perintahkan seseorang itu dihukum mati maka permohonan untuk hukum penjara seumur hidup itu terbatal lah dengan sendirinya!
Sama lah juga kalau Mahkamah perintahkan lesen memandu si Anu itu dibatalkan maka semua sekali lah batal baik kelas B dan D atau apa-apa kelas pun. Jangan lah pulak kata, si Anu itu masih boleh pakai Lesen L dia sebab mahkamah tak sebut pun dalam perintahnya.
Kalau Mahkamah batalkan keputusan dan perbuatan Speaker mengantung kehadiran ahli Dewan maka akibat dari perintah itu, ahli Dewan itu bolehlah hadir dan turut serta prosiding Dewan itu seolah-olah apa yang Speaker buat itu tidak pernah wujud!
Itu pun susah nak faham ke?
Memang tepat sekali. Saya baru hendak buat posting yang lebih kurang sama. Menyampah juga baca kenyataan lawyer buruk dalam Haprakdaily.
Puak-puak ni kalau kena kat dia semua betul...kalau kena kat orang lain semua dia putar belit.
Lawyer tu masih kat sekolah lagi bila saya dah jadi Magistrate...
(1) Kesahan apa-apa prosiding di dalam Dewan Undangan mana-mana Negeri tidaklah boleh dipersoalkan di dalam mana-mana mahkamah.
Apakah pendapat Datuk mengenai kenyataan Justice NH Tan, mantan hakim mahkamah rayuan.
"This is a perverse judgement of the Federal Court. It is perverse because it is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution which says,”The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”. The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the Constitution of Malaysia. In other words the judges have refused to do justice according to law."
Dari blog Kit Siang.
Lawyers are supposed to be in Court fully prepared with authourities and the relevant laws when they argue their cases. In this case, I know Tuan Haji Sulaiman Abdullah, the leading counsel for Sivakumar. He was my lecturer way back in 1979 and I know him to be very through and well prepared. I am sure he had argued the case with the Article 72 of the Constitution in his mind and all other relevant laws.
Laws are applied according to the facts of the case. In this case, the issue is whether Art. 72 should be invoked and applied. What was the facts of the case. Did Sivakumar make the pronouncement of the suspension in the Dewan or was it outside of the Dewan by way of Press Release.
Yes, I agree, if it was done in the proper proceedings of the Dewan, Art. 72 must be invoked. But NOT in this case and that is why I suspect the Federal Ct had decided the case in the Order as granted.
The Order granted was that the suspension of the MB & 6 Others were declared null & void and that be the case, the effect of the Order is that there was no suspension at all. Zambri & 6 others are therefore put back to status quo.
I wrote this posting in response to the argument that Zambri can come to the Dewan but could not participate, which is ridiculous.
NH Chan or Lim Kit Siang can have their own ideas on the court's order but as we are law abiding citizens, we must respect the orders and judgments of the Court as it stands. Unless there is another Higher Ct to revoke or amend the present court order.
It will be interesting to read the Grounds of Judgment when it is released.
I did not say that Sivakumar is not the Speaker anymore. He is still the Speaker unless replaced.
If PBO happen to know him personally, please tell him, as Speaker, his powers are exercisable during Dewan sittings only and when the Dewan is not sittings he has no power to issue pronouncements by way of press release or under the tree...
During my study in ITM and now UiTM from a diploma level to a Degree (not as a law student)but as an accounting student was informed that the Federal Constitution is above all other Act in the Malaysia (correct me if I am wrong).
For the Federal Court which is the highest court in the country to ignore what is mentioned in the Federal Constitution is something that a layman like me is puzzled about. Further, no appeal can be made at another higher court because there is no court higher than Federal Court.
Anyway lets us hope that when the Ground of Judgement is release will clear people understanding of the case.
I dont blame you for understanding the law in that way. It is true that the Consitution is the highest law of the land BUT law must be applied with the facts of the case as I had explained earlier.
Whilst the Federal Ct is the highest Ct in Malaysia, its decision can be reviewed by its FULL Quorum i.e with a panel of 7 judges if the present decision is found to be manifestly or fundamentally wrong.
I dont think the present Fed. Ct is wrong in the decision of the Perak case.
Memang lah kita akan merasa marah kalau keputusan tidak memihak kepada kita. Kita hanya akan berpuas hati kalau kita yang dapat atau menang. Bagi lawyer kalah menang kes adalah perkara biasa...tidak perlu marah2.
"Memang lah kita akan merasa marah kalau keputusan tidak memihak kepada kita. ..."
I beg to differ. Not if the decision is seen to be fair, usually. ;)
But I agree that we should wait for the grounds...
Quoting your statement " I dont think the present Fed. Ct is wrong in the decision of the Perak case."
There you are Dato'.. You "think".. You said it. It is only your thinking. To me what is right may not be what you think or what you think is right may not be right.
Quoting you "Memang lah kita akan merasa marah kalau keputusan tidak memihak kepada kita."
Saya tidak pernah merasa marah tetapi hanya sedikit puzzled kenapa Perlembagaan Malaysia diketepikan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan.
Saya boleh menerima kalau ia mempunyai asas sperti.. mungkin speaker bertindak di luar persidangan dewan ...
Kalau masih boleh "think" kira ok lagi lah kan? Kalau dah tak boleh think....dah tak boleh tulis lagi lah...dah sampai ajal!
Seriously I "think" tu sebab grounds of judgment belum keluar.
Salam Pak Lubis
"Think" dimaksudkan disini adalah 'fikiran.' Kalau dalam hearing di mahkamah apabila ditanya oleh peguam sesuatu perkara kalau kita kata 'i think" tidak cukup meyakinkan. Kalau peguam yang garang tentunya kita kena herdik. Jawapan yang patut dijawap samaada 'Ya' atau 'Tidak' atau yang seumpamanya. Dato sendiri tentu lebih ariff kerana itu adalah bidang Dato'.
Kalau dah ajal memang kita tidak boleh menulis langsung tetapi adakalanya kita tidak boleh'think" dan seterusnya tidak boleh/dapat menulis kerana tidak tahu apa yang nak ditulis.
Anyway Dato'. Thanks for interaction. Hoping to meet again in another issue and hope that the Ground of Judgement be release for us to have a discussion again.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]