Court of Appeal: Judgement Tomorrow 3.30 pm

By SK English News

The hearing began with Zambry’s lawyer Cecil Abraham submitting that High Court judge Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim had erred in adopting a previously decided case law - the Stephen Kalong Ningkan case.

Cecil also questioned the judge for not attaching sufficient weight to documentary evidence produced before him on the legality of Zambry’s appointment.

The lawyer said Justice Abdul Aziz himself had admitted he did not consider evidence showing how the Perak Sultan ordered Nizar to resign but the latter refused to do so. Cecil added that the state’s constitution provided for the royal command that Nizar resign.

“The sultan then interviewed all 28 BN reps, the three independents and (the then state Umno chief) Najib Abdul Razak on Feb 5 to ascertain if BN had the majority,” Cecil said. “Only then did the sultan inform Nizar that his request for dissolution was rejected and asked him to step down.”

Attorney General Abdul Gani Patail, who is intervening in the matter on behalf of the federal government, then took over.

Gani said that Nizar’s affidavit indirectly admitted that he had lost the majority in the state assembly by acknowledging that there was a deadlock, with both Pakatan and BN having 28 seats each.

Gani also said that since the Speaker of the assembly, V Sivakumar, would not be allowed to participate in a vote of no-confidence, the BN would have 28 seats to Pakatan’s 27.

House rules dictate that the Speaker can only vote if both BN and Pakatan had equal number of seats, minus the Speaker’s.

The AG also argued that there were no provisions under the Perak constitution that a menteri besar must be voted out through a no-confidence motion.

“If you have lost the confidence, you must resign. You cannot let the system go to disarray as we had seen in the legislative assembly,” Gani said.

He also supported Cecil’s argument that the High Court should not have used as a precedent, the Stephen Kalong Ningkan case.

Nizar’s side of the story

When the court reconvened after lunch at 2.10 pm, Nizar’s counsel Sulaiman Abdullah began by slamming the submissions put forth by Cecil and Gani, calling them ‘trash’.

Basically, Nizar’s stand is that the Sultan is empowered by the constitution to hire but not fire.

So regardless of the checks performed as mentioned by Cecil, the act of sacking Nizar was unconstitutional as it could only be performed by Nizar’s peers in the state assembly via a no-confidence vote. Not behind closed doors at the discretion of the Sultan.

A three-member panel is hearing the case after Nizar’s request for a five-man bench was rejected. The judges are Abdul Raus Sharif, Zainun Ali and Ahmad Maarop.

The hearing is expected to take a few days before the court can make a ruling, although DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang has expressed concern it might be trying to rush things through.

“Court of Appeal seems to want to finish hearing today. Hope there is no rush,” the veteran leader twittered from his mobile phone.

Sulaiman asked the court to put in perspective the arguments from Cecil and the AG. If these were accepted, then it means that even the prime minister can be fired by the Agong, if the latter so deems that the PM no longer enjoyed the support of the majority of BN lawmakers.

He reiterated there was no provision in the Perak constitution that gave express power for the Sultan to sack a menteri besar. The Ruler can only dismiss state executive councillors but not his chief minister.

“There is no constitutional provision for the menteri besar to be dismissed or sacked. That has to be done at the assembly where a vote of no-confidence should have been made,” said Sulaiman.

Sulaiman also argued that there was no need for Nizar to tender his resignation as there was no motion for a no-confidence vote to be tabled in the assembly. In fact, Speaker Sivakumar had written to the Sultan on Feb 6 to ask for a special sitting and to seek the postponement of Zambry’s appointment.

“But the ruler did not accede to it and appointed Zambry instead,” he said.

Sulaiman stressed that Nizar was not challenging the Sultan’s power not to dissolve the assembly. “Neither are we challenging his powers to call the elected representatives but he cannot take the large step forward to determine Nizar has lost his manority and order him to resign.”

With that, Sulaiman - Nizar’s lead counsel - ended his submission, urging the Appeals court not to change the decision of the High Court. Another of Nizar’s counsel, Ranjit Singh, also submitted, re-emphasizing points raised by Sulaiman.

Rebuttal

Zambry’s lawyer Cecil has begun the rebuttal session, saying that a no-confidence vote was just one of many options to dismissing an MB. Tun Majid rebutted on behalf of the AG.

Meanwhile, Kit Siang has twittered back this meassage: “Today is Zambry’s 100 days as the squatter and usurper Perak Mentri Besar – and the question on everybody’s mind on Zambry’s first Black 100 Days is whether Perak would be Umno’s graveyard in the 13th national general election and Zambry the cause of Prime Minister Najib Razak’s downfall as the last Umno Prime Minister in Malaysia.”

Rebuttal has ended and the court has decided that it can deliver its judgement on Friday, May 22, at 3.30 pm.