The Kuala Lumpur High Court (Appellate and Special Powers Division) ruled it had no jurisdiction to hear a challenge by Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo on his 12-month suspension from Parliament.

Justice Mohd Ariff Mohd Yusof said the suspension order meted out by Parliament was in accordance with Article 63 (1) of the Federal Constitution, hence the court was duty bound and cannot hear the challenge by Gobind.

However, Justice Mohd Ariff ordered Parliament to pay Gobind remunerations due to him from March 16 (the date he was suspended) as it did not have powers to withhold it.

teoh beng hock inquest 011009 gobind singh "The withholding of his remuneration is against Article 64 of the constitution," said the judge. "The court orders that an interest of eight per cent be charged from the date of his suspension."

Article 63 (1) states the validity of any proceedings in either the House of Parliament or any committee thereof shall not be questioned in any court.

Meanwhile, Article 64 reads Parliament shall by law provide for the remuneration of members of each House.

Justice Mohd Ariff agreed what Gobind said was tantamount to contempt of proceedings but said Parliament should not withhold his remuneration and stop him from performing his task as an elected representative.

He noted that while the Federal Court matter involving Perak menteri besar Zambry Abdul Kadir was a landmark decision, he agreed with senior federal counsel Azizah Nawawi, that it was not applicable in this case.

Bound by Zambry's case

In Gobind's case, the judge noted it occurred within the four walls of the legislature, while in Zambry and his state exco's suspension, by which he is bound, it did not occur within the state assembly and this resulted in it being subjected to judicial review.

Justice Mohd Ariff cited British Common Law principles in his judgment that decisions within the legislature cannot be challenged.

Gobind filed his originating summons on April 23 against the Speaker, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz, the Dewan Rakyat secretary and the government over the suspension.

In the suit, Gobind wanted his suspension as a MP to be declared null and void as well of having no effect and being unconstitutional.

He also wanted the letter notifying him of his suspension signed by parliamentary secretary Roosmee Hamzah and the orders contained in the letter be declared unenforceable in law.

The Puchong MP also sought a declaration to reinstate remunerations and other benefits constitutionally granted to MPs under Article 64 of the Federal Constitution.

It's fair decision, says Karpal

Meanwhile, senior lawyer Karpal Singh who represented his son, said that the High Court ruling was a landmark decision, calling it fair.

"It is not right for Parliament to withhold his remunerations and benefits,"he said.

"In fact, Batu Gajah MP Fong Po Kuan and I were suspended in 2004 and our remunerations withheld for six months."

The Bukit Gelugor-DAP parliamentarian said in light of today's decision, parliament and the government should reimburse them.

NONE "We should be paid our remunerations. Fong would agree and so will I that these proceeds be given to charity."

He said in 1984, he was also suspended but at that time, his remuneration was not withheld.

Karpal said Nazri and the Speaker should get a copy of today's judgement and know their boundaries within the law.

Gobind said he respected the High Court's decision. He said what was important was that he is now able to serve his constituents.

"I'm challenged the decision based on principle that some MPs are full time politicians. If they are suspended and their remunerations withdrawn, how are they to get an income and serve their constituents?" he asked.

Asked what he will do now with the remunerations, Gobind jokingly said he would have to pay his counsel (Karpal and Sankara Nair). Karpal quickly pitched in and said he was providing pro bono (free service) to the Puchong MP.

Karpal added that today's decision did not mean that happenings in the house cannot be reviewed or challenged by the court. He said that Gobind would not appeal the decision.