The Ipoh High Court today ruled that it had no jurisdiction to hear the proceedings of the Perak legislative assembly under Article 72 (Privileges of Legislative Assembly) of the Federal Constitution.

Article 72(1) states the validity of any proceedings in the legislative assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.

Article 72(2) states no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the legislative assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.

ganesan perak state assembly speaker 070509 01 Article 72(3) states no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of the legislative assembly of any State.

Judge Azahar Mohamed made this ruling and dismissed the civil suit brought about by ousted Pakatan Perak state assembly speaker V Sivakumar against BN-appointed speaker R Ganesan ( above ).

The suit was brought about by Sivakumar after was forcefully removed from the speaker's chair by police personnel in the infamous May 7 state assembly sitting.

Ganesan was appointed to replace Sivakumar by 31 BN members of the House.

Sivakumar wanted the court to prevent Ganesan or his agents and servants from denying Sivakumar entry to the assembly or preventing him from occupying the speaker office or carrying out his duties as the lawful speaker of the Perak state assembly.

Objections to press presence

Sivakumar wanted the Ganesan or his agents and servants to be prohibited from carrying out any further acts of abuse, assault or battery on him.

Azahar stated that the court had no power to interfere in the proceedings of the state assembly as argued by lead defence counsel Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin who had a team of seven lawyers with him.

Earlier, when the court set at 10am, Firoz objected to the press being present in court as the hearing was to be heard in chambers, but the judge overruled his objection and allowed the press to remain in court.

v sivakumar perak state assembly speaker being dragged out of the assembly incident 130509 film strip Firoz had started from the very start of his arguments that the court has no jurisdiction over the proceedings of the state assembly as there is a principle of separation of powers between parliament or legislative, and the judiciary as specified in Article 72 of the Federal constitution.

Sivakumar was represented by Chan Kok Keong and Leong Cheok Keng.

Chan agreed with Firoz that the question of the legality of the speaker can only be decided by the state assembly and not the court.

However, Chan in his arguments, said that he was only seeking an injunction for immunity from violence for his client.

Firoz objected saying that the aim of Sivakumar was to get due recognition from the court as the legal state speaker which is not with the jurisdiction of the court.

I'm confused, says Sivakuma r

The court stood down for two hours from 2pm for Azahar to make his decision.

At 4pm Azahar said: "The court has no jurisdiction on the validity of the assembly proceedings and only the legislative assembly can decide on the legality of the two speakers."

Later outside the court, Chan said that they will make an appeal against the decision. Sivakumar who was present during the sitting said he was astonished by the court's decision.

"I had filed the two court cases against (Mentri Besar) Zambry (Abdul Kadir) and his six executive councillors, and another against the three frogs (independent assemblypersons who left Pakatan to support BN which saw the collapse of the Pakatan state government in February this year).

On both occasions, I had cited Article 72 of the Federal constitution to argue my case to which their defence lawyers had objected, and the courts ruled in their favour."

"Now the same article is used against me and the court has recognised the immunity of assembly proceedings from court jurisdiction," said a shell-shocked Sivakumar. "I'm very confused by the court's decision."