'Court can't interfere in Perak assembly proceedings'

The court cannot interfere in matters that transpired in Perak state assembly proceedings and its resolution over the removal of V Sivakumar as the speaker, the Court of Appeal said.

Justice Abdul Malik Ishak said whatever had taken place on May 7 last year in the Perak state assembly where Sivakumar was removed as the speaker and was replaced with R Ganesan, was legitimate and validly done according to the law.

He said it was indisputable that the assembly had the power or jurisdiction to elect or dismiss the speaker, adding that issue of whom was the validly appointed speaker was an issue outside the domain of the court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate, by virtue of Article 72 of the federal constitution.

“Any relief extended to Sivakumar would have the effect of usurping the powers of the assembly,” he said in his 49-page judgment dated Aug 20 which was made available to the media today.

On June 22 this year, a three-man Court of Appeal panel led by Abdul Malik had dismissed Sivakumar’s appeal to restore his civil suit against Ganesan for alleged assault, battery and wrongful detention.

        

Sivakumar took legal action against Ganesan following the state assembly sitting on May 7 last year where he alleged that he was forcefully held, dragged and removed from the assembly hall on Ganesan’s orders while he was chairing the assembly sitting at the Perak Darul Ridzuan building as the legitimate speaker.

On that day, he claimed that after the assembly had resolved to remove him as speaker, Ganesan ordered him to return to his Tronoh assembly seat but he refused, prompting Ganesan to order the bentara dewan (sergeant-at-arms) to remove him from the speaker’s chair, resulting in a scuffle.

In the judgment, Abdul Malik said Ganesan’s action in the assembly was done as a lawful speaker in the course of exercising his functions and duties accordance with the powers granted to him under the laws of the Perak constitution, the standing order and parliamentary practice.

He said it was a matter concerning the assembly’s internal proceedings which the court cannot interfere and that Sivakumar also cannot challenge the validity of the proceedings of the Assembly.

Sivakumar’s behaviour ‘unruly’

Abdul Malik said what Ganesan did on that day was to maintain order and peace in the assembly in view of the unruly behaviour of Sivakumar who was obstructing or disrupting the orderly business of the assembly,” he said.

        

The judge said the court could only conclude that Sivakumar’s claim was frivolous because he was unable to identify his assailants.

“In a desperate attempt to salvage a sinking ship, the plaintiff (Sivakumar) relied on the meeting under the tree on March 3, 2009 and claimed that it was an assembly meeting. It is our judgment that such a contention is wholly unfounded and totally vexatious.

He said it was the court’s judgment that the purported meeting under the tree was not an assembly meeting because there was no proclamation or gazette notification for such a meeting as is required under the laws of the Perak constitution and standing orders.

“There were 31 statutory declarations of the Perak state legislative assemblymen who in unison confirmed that the plaintiff (Sivakumar) had been removed as speaker of the assembly and that the defendant (Ganesan) had been elected as speaker of the assembly,” he said.

“Whatever the defendant did on May 7, 2009 after being elected as the speaker must be held to be privileged. The cloak of immunity has completely shrouded the defendant,” he said.

The High Court was right to summarily strike out Sivakumar’s suit, Abdul Malik said.

- Bernama