Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this
mk-logo
News
Bar: Hafarizam didn't inform us of the date of decision
Published:  Jul 15, 2016 1:22 PM
Updated: 5:30 AM

The Malaysian Bar has defended itself against an accusation by Umno lawyer Mohd Hafarizam Harun that it did not send a representative to his court case yesterday for a watching brief

Hafarizam had said he was disappointed that the Bar Council did not send a representative to attend the case involving the Selangor state legislative assembly.

In its reply, Bar Council secretary Karen Cheah said that the Bar had appointed Nizam Bashir as watching brief counsel for Hafarizam's case and he had attended court on Feb 25.

On that day, the Federal Court had deferred its decision to a date that was yet to be fixed at that time, she said.

So the Bar had written to Hafarizam to keep them notified of the newly-fixed date for the decision.

"Despite following up with him on several occasions, we did not receive any reply from him.

"He did not notify the Bar Council of the date for decision. Had we been informed by him, a counsel would have been appointed to attend court yesterday," she said in a statement today.

She also said that the Bar Council was disappointed that Hafarizam had accused the council of failing to send a watching brief counsel to court for this matter.

Yesterday, the Federal Court had ruled that the Selangor state legislative assembly had acted beyond its jurisdiction and unconstitutionally prescribed contempt on Hafarizam five years ago.

In upholding the Shah Alam High Court and the Court of Appeal's decision, Chief Judge of Malaya Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin today dismissed the appeal by the Selangor state assembly, the House Rights and Privileges Committee, and the committee secretary Mohamed Yasid Bidin to cite Hafarizam for contempt.

The apex court said there was no provision under the assembly's Standing Orders or the Contempt of the House (State of Selangor) Enactment 2009 for prescribing alleged contempt beyond the walls of the state assembly.

In reacting to the decision yesterday, Hafarizam had thanked his lawyer Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin for remaining by his side over the five years, but was disappointed with the Bar Council for not sending a watching brief counsel.

“They (Bar Council) did not send a representative to the High Court and also to the Court of Appeal.

“Maybe they do not consider me to be a member of the Malaysian Bar, despite having paid my fees every year. Yet they have been conspicuously absent from the proceeding to express their support over me.

"I am not only a lawyer representing Umno as I do represent others in other matters,” he said.

On April 12, 2011, the assembly summoned Hafarizam to appear before the House Rights and Privileges Committee after he sent a letter of demand to a legal firm which represented then Selangor state assembly speaker Teng Chang Khim.

Hafarizam had been acting on behalf of his client, then Port Klang assemblyperson Badrul Hisham Abdullah.

Teng had on Jan 19, 2011, declared Badrul Hisham's seat vacant, claiming that he was absent without leave from the state assembly sitting for six consecutive months.

Hafarizam did not appear before the committee, and this led to them fining him RM20,000.

Hafarizam then sought a declaration that the summons for contempt went beyond the scope of proceedings of the assembly that it could act upon.

ADS