Court decision 'in contempt of assembly'

DAP veteran leader Karpal Singh weighed in on the constitutional crisis in Perak today, stressing that the Perak legislative assembly can ignore an Ipoh High Court order barring state assembly speaker V Sivakumar from convening any 'unlawful meetings'.

According to Karpal, who is also Bukit Gelugor MP, the court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter , making the decision "null and void".

"I don't think the decision can be supported. And the High Court's decision is a contempt of the state assembly as it had acted out of its jurisdiction.

"If it acts out of jurisdiction, then there is no protection... the decision itself is debatable. It can't interfere in the internal proceedings of a Parliament of a state assembly,"said Karpal.

Yesterday, judicial commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim made the ruling in his chambers to restrain Sivakumar from convening any unlawful meetings purporting to be state assemblies.

The ruling was made following an application by Barisan Nasional Menteri Besar Zambry Abd Kadir and his six exco members.

An emergency sitting to pass a vote of confidence to ousted menteri besar Mohamad Nizar Jamaluddin took place under a tree yesterday after the state building was closed to prevent any sittings by Pakatan Rakyat leaders.

When asked whether Pakatan leaders in Perak should challenge the decision, Karpal opined that they should not challenge something "unlawful and void".

"Why challenge something which is in fact non-existent? Ignore the High Court order as I think the assembly has the power to ignore the order. It is null and void and it is not required to be followed," he said.

Unconstitutional decision

Karpal added that Sivakumar could turn the tables on the judge for making an "unconstitutional" decision for which he "could be brought before the Perak state assembly".

"The judge will have to answer for having acted unconstitutionally. He can be brought before the Perak assembly because of the decision he made," he said.

Karpal also pointed out that the judicial commissioner had made a mistake in dismissing five private lawyers from representing Sivakumar in the High Court yesterday. He had instead ordered the speaker to seek the services of the State Legal Adviser.

"It is definitely a conflict of interest because the State Legal Advisor has claimed to be representing Zambry in the Kuala Lumpur High Court," he said.

State Legal Advisor, Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid had previously claimed to be representing Zambry in a suit over who is the lawful menteri besar at the KL High Court.

For this ‘conflict of interest', Karpal said Ahmad Kamal should immediately disqualify himself from representing Zambry.

He also pointed out that in such a case where assemblypersons are suing each other, both Sivakumar and Zambry have the right to seek representation by private lawyers.

Rather than having deputy state legal advisor Zulkarnain Hassan representing the speaker in closed chambers yesterday, Karpal said Sivakumar should have represented himself because "he is a trained lawyer".