Pakatan's Perak Speaker V Sivakumar is suing state secretary Abdul Rahman Hashim for allegedly exceeding his powers as a government servant in interfering with the affairs of the legislature.

penanti by election pakatan leaders ceramah sivakumar nik aziz anwar tian chua 280509 04 Since the suit is against Rahman in his personal capacity, he cannot be represented by the federal counsel and must pay for his own lawyer.

Sivakumar is also seeking an injunction against Rahman from preventing the former from exercising his duties as speaker when the state assembly sits on Sept 2.

Sivakumar filed the writ summons with the Ipoh High Court through his lawyers Chan & Associates today.

The particulars of his alleged misfeasance are:

  • Knew or ought to have known that he has no power to interfere with the affairs of the legislature.
  • Showed political bias in favour of the Barisan Nasional since March 3.
  • Failed to keep away from party politics.
  • Instructed the police to prevent the sitting of the assembly and meetings of the committee of powers and privileges.
  • Failed to execute his duties in accordance with the General Orders.

'Acted beyond his functions'

Sivakumar in his statement of claims stated that:

  • On March 3, the defendant and his servants or agents prevented the plaintiff and members of the Perak state assembly from entering and holding the assembly meeting at the assembly hall situated in Banguanan Perak Darul Ridzuan, Jalan Panglima Bukit Gantang, Ipoh.
  • The plaintiff avers that the defendant’s act in denying the plaintiff access to the assembly hall was unlawful and unconstitutional.
  • Further, the defendant acted at all material times maliciously with the intention or purpose to injure the plaintiff in preferring one R Ganesan as speaker and denying the plaintiff his right as the lawful speaker.
  • Alternatively, the defendant knew and/or was aware at all material times that as a civil servant, he had no power or authority to interfere with or trespass into the affairs of the legislature, and that his acts whether by himself and/or his servants would injure the plaintiff.
  • As a result of the defendant’s misfeasance and/or abuse of power, the plaintiff was deprived of the proper venue to hold the assembly meeting and prevented from carrying out his duties and obligations as the lawful speaker of the assembly.
  • The defendant at all material time, had acted beyond his functions and responsibilities as a civil servant and therefore can claim no protection under the Government Proceedings Act 1956. The plaintiff avers that his liability is therefore personal and this claim is made against him in his personal capacity.
  • By reason of the above stated matters, the plaintiff suffered shock, loss and damage, also suffered and endured humiliation and embarrassment in public.
  • Unless restrained by this honourable court, the defendant intends and/or by his conduct intends to act illegally to prevent the state assembly from sitting in their premises.

Sivakumar is seeking damages, exemplary damages, costs, other relief and an injunction to prevent the defendant from denying the plaintiff entry or obstructing the plaintiff from occupying the office of or carrying out his duties as the lawful speaker.

Earlier on Aug 20, Sivakumar through his lawyers had given Rahman a legal notice with an undertaking that Rahman will not seek to interfere with the proceedings of the assembly on Sept 2.

Rahman failed to respond to the legal notice within the stipulated 48 hours and therefore the suit was filed today.