Senior lawyer Tommy Thomas has claimed that the ‘tree assembly’ conducted in March by Perak Pakatan Rakyat assembly representatives is valid under provisions of the federal constitution.

He was testifying before the Pakatan Rights and Privileges Committee, chaired by Sivakumar, in its inquiry into the validity of the Barisan Nasional appointment of its speaker R Ganesan.

The inquiry, which began yesterday, was moved to a hotel after police barred the committee from using the state secretariat.

NONE One part of Tommy’s testimony was related to the fourth sitting of the first session of the 12th legislative assembly held on March 3, after speaker V Sivakumar and the other Pakatan members were denied entry to the state secretariat where the House is located.

He cited several legal authorities from the Perak constitution and Standing Order, and the procedure of the British Parliament to explain his conclusion.

He said the third sitting of the House had been adjourned sine die last November and that Article 36 of the state constitution does not deal with adjournment of the assembly.

Article 44(1)states that the legislative assembly is to regulate its own procedure and that it may make Standing Rules and Orders for the regulation and orderly conduct of its own proceedings and the conduct of business.

The Article recognises the well settled constitutional principle that the assembly is the master of its procedure and its sovereignty over its internal affairs cannot be questioned by any external body.

Tommy said the speaker is entitled under Standing Order 90 to have regard to Commonwealth parliamentary practice, in this case the settled practice in the House of Commons, as to his own power to convene a sitting of the assembly during adjournment.

“For these reasons, in my opinion, Mr Speaker (Sivakumar) is lawfully empowered to convene the fourth sitting,” he said.

‘Sivakumar remains speaker’

On another development, he said Sivakumar was “not lawfully removed on May 7 (during a sitting that turned riotous ) and continues under the constitution and in law to be the sole, lawful speaker of the legislative assembly of Perak”.

The power to remove the speaker is found in Article 36A (2)(d),but this must be preceded by the fact that the assembly is a legal position to transact business, including deliberating and passing such a resolution.

Tommy pointed out that the first session of any assembly sitting convened under Article 36 (1) cannot transact any business or pass any resolution prior to the royal address. In the case of the May 7 sitting, the royal address was delivered between 3.16pm and 3.47pm on May 7.

sivakumar being dragged abused manhandled by security unknown individual out perak state assembly chaos 070509 “It is not in factual dispute that the purported resolution to remove Sivakumar as speaker was purportedly passed at about 10.30am, well before the royal address,” he concluded.

“Thus, any purported resolutions or decisions taken before the royal address are null and void and of no legal effect.”

Sivakumar has sought a declaration from the Ipoh High Court that he is the lawful speaker. The case is due to be heard on Aug 6.