The Federal Court in Putrajaya today gave the nod to the Selangor state assembly and two others to appeal against a High Court ruling which quashed its summons compelling lawyer Mohd Hafarizam Harun to appear before the House Rights and Privileges Committee.

A five-member panel chaired by Federal Court judge Ahmad Maarop unanimously granted the leave to the state assembly, its House Rights and Privileges Committee secretary Mohamad Yasid Bidin and the committee to appeal to the Federal Court.

The panel which also comprised Federal Court judges Hasan Lah, Jeffrey Tan Kok What, Abu Samah Nordin and Azahar Mohamed allowed the application on three legal questions which would be heard and decided in the appeal proper.

The first two questions related to whether the Selangor state assembly, the secretary of the committee as well as the committee have the capacity to be impleaded in legal proceedings.

The other legal question was whether upon a true construction of Article 72 (1) of the federal constitution, the expression “proceedings in the legislative assembly of any state” included anything said or done by a non-member of a legislative assembly outside its precincts.

On April 1, 2011, Mohd Hafarizam and his client, former Port Klang assemblyperson Badrul Hisham Abdullah, were referred to the Rights and Privileges Committee for contempt of the state assembly.

The House had approved a motion to refer the two after they allegedly pressed for former state assembly speaker Teng Chang Khim to pay RM40,000 or face bankruptcy proceedings.

Teng had, on Jan 19, 2011, declared the Port Klang seat vacant, claiming that Badrul Hisham was absent without leave from the state assembly sitting for six consecutive months, but the Shah Alam High Court reversed the order on Feb 18, 2011 and ordered Teng to pay RM40,000 in legal costs to Badrul Hisham.

Mohd Hafarizam, was issued with a summons on April 12, 2011 to appear before the House Rights and Privileges Committee to answer contempt charges for sending a letter to Teng’s lawyer, Messrs Tommy Thomas, to demand payment of RM40,000 in costs pursuant to the court order.

He was alleged to have sent the letter which contained language deemed indecent, insolent and threatening.

On May 31, 2011, the Shah Alam High Court allowed Mohd Hafarizam’s originating summons to quash the summons issued against him to compel him to appear before the House Rights and Privileges Committee to answer charges for contempt of the assembly.

High Court ruled summons was void

The High Court had ruled that the summons issued by the State legislative assembly to compel Mohd Hafarizam to appear before the Rights and Privileges Committee to answer the contempt charges was void and against the federal constitution.

On Feb 10, this year, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought by the state assembly, Mohamad Yasid and the committee and upheld the High Court’s decision.

In the proceedings today, counsel Gopal Sri Ram who represented the state assembly, Mohamad Yasid and the committee, submitted that the legal questions posed were of public interest and required the court’s consideration.

He said the appeal was not academic and that leave to appeal should be granted because the matter dealt with the constitutionality of what the state assembly had done.

Hafarizam’s counsel Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin argued that leave to appeal should not be granted because there were no noval questions posed for the Federal Court to determine.

- Bernama