The Selangor state legislative assembly had acted beyond its jurisdiction and unconstitutionally prescribed contempt on Umno lawyer Mohd Hafarizam Harun five years ago, the Federal Court in Putrajaya ruled today.

The apex court said there is no provision under the assembly's Standing Orders or the Contempt of the House (State of Selangor) Enactment 2009 for prescribing alleged contempt beyond the walls of the state assembly.

In upholding the Shah Alam High Court and the Court of Appeal's decision, Chief Judge of Malaya Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin today dismissed the appeal by the Selangor state assembly, the House Rights and Privileges committee, and the committee secretary Mohamed Yasid Bidin to cite Hafarizam for contempt.

The court also awarded RM30,000 costs to Hafarizam.

“It is our judgment that the assembly must act within its constitutional and legal powers before the protection provided for by Article 72(1) can arise, before passing a resolution of an act of contempt having been committed beyond the walls of the state legislative assembly.

“The assembly's powers are limited by the Selangor state constitution,” said Justice Zulkefli, who wrote the unanimous decision.

“It is our considered view that the resolution prescribing the alleged contempt and to refer Hafarizam to the committee of privileges is unconstitutional, being ultra vires (beyond the power) of the Selangor state constitution and the Standing Orders of the assembly,” he added.

Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution reads “the validity of any proceedings in the legislative assembly of any state shall not be questioned in any court".

The third most senior judicial officer in the country also reminded that in Malaysia, Parliament is not supreme as the country has a written constitution, unlike in the United Kingdom.

The other judges on the bench were Justices Suriyadi Halim Omar, Hasan Lah, Zainun Ali and Aziah Ali.

Justice Zulkefli said the court is also bound by the decision in the Perak constitutional imbroglio case of Zambry Abdul Kadir vs Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, where it ruled that the assembly could not act outside the walls of the assembly.

On April 12, 2011, the assembly summoned Hafarizam to appear before the House Rights and Privileges Committee after he sent a letter of demand to a legal firm which represented then Selangor state assembly speaker Teng Chang Khim.

Hafarizam had been acting on behalf of his client, then Port Klang assemblyperson Badrul Hisham Abdullah.

Teng had on Jan 19, 2011, declared Badrul Hisham's seat vacant, claiming that he was absent without leave from the state assembly sitting for six consecutive months.

Hafarizam did not appear before the committee, and this led to them fining him RM20,000.

Hafarizam then sought a declaration that the summons for contempt went beyond the scope of proceedings of the assembly that it could act upon.

Upset over Bar Council's absence

On March 31, 2011, the High Court allowed his application to seek a declaration to set aside the summons issued by the assembly.

On Feb 10, 2014, the Court of Appeal led by Justice Zaharah Ibrahim dismissed the appeal by the Selangor state legislative assembly and two others.

Hafarizam, in reacting to today's decision, thanked his lawyer Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin for remaining by his side over the five years.

However, he expressed his disappointment with the Bar Council for not sending a representative to the decision for watching brief.

“They did not send a representative at the High Court and also at the Court of Appeal.

“Maybe they do not consider me to be a member of the Malaysian Bar, despite having paid my fees every year. Yet they have been conspicuously absent from the proceeding to express their support over me.

"I am not only a lawyer representing Umno as I do represent others in other matters,” he said.

For this reason, Hafarizam said, maybe another Bar Council should be formed to accommodate people like him.

He said even senior federal counsel Amarjit Singh appeared for the Attorney-General's Chambers as amicus curiae (friend of the court) to support the application.