The Selangor state assembly’s rights and privileges committee today found Port Klang assemblyperson Badrul Hisham Abdullah not guilty of contempt of the state assembly, after he denied giving any instructions to his lawyer to act for him.

NONE On the other hand, the powerful committee reprimanded the lawyer Mohd Hafarizam Harun ( right in picture ) for lying to the committee by submitting a false affidavit, non-attendance of today’s proceeding, not following his client’s instruction and threatening speaker Teng Chang Khim.

Committee chairperson M Manoharan said following this, the three-member committee recommended that the state legislative assembly fine Hafarizam RM20,000 and gave a stern warning to lawyers in the state not to act overboard in disobeying their client’s instructions.

“We did not find Badrul Hisham guilty as he has denied giving instructions to Hafarizam to act for him to write the letter and affidavit. Furthermore, he apologised before the committee and following this, the committee decided not to take action on him.

“The committee has agreed to release and discharge Badrul Hisham,” said Manoharan, who is also the Kota Alam Shah assemblyperson.

Two other committee members who sat at the meeting were Subang Jaya assemblyperson Hannah Yeoh and Bangi assemblyperson Dr Shafie Abu Bakar, and their decision was unanimous.

Badrul Hisham, the former PKR now Umno assemblyperson was referred to the powerful committee for sending a notice to Teng which was deemed very indecent, insolent and contained threatening terms. This came after the High Court dismissed an application by the Selangor speaker to strike out his suit and ordered Teng to pay RM40,000 costs to Badrul Hisham.

Teng declared the Port Klang seat vacant as of Jan 16, after Badrul Hisham was absent without permission from the speaker and missed the sitting for six consecutive months. Badrul Hisham filed the suit and Teng tried to strike it out but was ordered by the Shah Alam court to pay RM40,000 costs to Badrul Hisham.

However, in an about-turn, Badrul Hisham today denied giving such instructions to Hafarizam.

‘Hafarizam acted on his own’

Manoharan said based on Badrul Hisham’s testimony and denial today of instructing Hafarizam to write the affidavit and the threatening letter to Teng, the committee recommended action against the lawyer by finding him guilty.

“I have also instructed a police report be made by the assembly's secretary against Hafarizam for violating section 3 of the Contempt of House Enactment for not attending today’s proceeding and filing a false affidavit.

“The committee also sternly warns lawyers in the state to always follow the client’s instruction and not act according to their whims,” he said.

On being asked whether today's committee hearing was valid as Hafarizam had managed to obtain an injunction from the Shah Alam High Court to stop it, Manoharan said he was informed of the order after the committee concluded its hearing.

“We finished the hearing and held the press conference at noon. I  was informed of the court matter at 12.15. How can the court stop the proceeding when it has ended? As far as we are concerned the committee hearing is legal,” he said.

Besides getting an interim injunction, the Shah Alam High Court also fixed May 20 to hear the matter.

Manoharan said it was also improper for Hafarizam to write a threatening letter to Teng and instituting bankruptcy proceedings as he was acting in his capacity as a speaker.

“You cannot institute proceeding against the speaker. In the letter, dated March 29, 2011 he also made some obscene and rude remarks against Teng in demanding payment of RM40,000 within seven days and threatenening the speaker with bankruptcy. This is ridiculous and with Badrul Hisham denying giving such instructions it seems Hafarizam had acted on his own,” he said.

Teng, commenting on the committee’s decision, said he has yet to receive a full report from the committee over its findings and recommendations.

However, he was upset with the decision made by the High Court in issuing the injunction, describing such an action as unconstitutional.