Judge in Perak Speaker, V. Sivakumar’s case has contradicted himself and acted ultra vires

MEDIA STATEMENT

The Ipoh High Court yesterday struck out with costs the suit filed by Perak Legislative Assembly Speaker, V. Sivakumar against Dato’ R Ganesan seeking damages for assault, battery and wrongful detention as well as aggravated damages.

I would like to express my total disappointment with the judgment for the following 3 reasons:-

1. On the one hand Justice Azahar Mohamed said that the court could not interfere with the sitting of the Perak State Legislative Assembly on May 7 because Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution provides that ‘the validity of any proceeding in any state legislative assembly cannot be questioned in any court’ and therefore struck out v. Sivakumar’s suit, but on the same breath he contravened the said provision by stating that the decision of the legislative assembly on May 7, 2009 to remove the Plaintiff, V. Sivakumar as Speaker and to appoint the Defendant, Dato’ R. Ganesan was conclusive and had been fairly determined by the State Assembly on May 7, 2009.

2. The issue of who is the legitimate Speaker was not the subject matter of this suit and therefore, the judge has acted ultra vires (outside his jurisdiction) to state that the removal of V. Sivakumar and the appointment of Dato’ R. Ganesan was conclusive and had been fairly determined by the State Assembly on May 7, 2009.

3. The learned Judge ought not to have strike out the suit as this suit is an action against assault, battery and wrongful detention and not concerning the proceedings of the State Assembly.

In the current Perak crisis, many perverse judgments or judgments not made according to law (in the words of former Court of Appeal Judge, Dato’ NH Chan) have been made and the decision of Justice Azahar Mohamad is definitely another addition.

Dated this 9^th day of September 2009.

DATO’ NGEH KOO HAM

- Member of Parliament for Beruas

- Senior Exco Pakatan Rakyat

Perak State Government

--------------------------------------------

民主行动党木威区国会议员兼民联高级行政议员拿督倪可汉于2009年9月9日（星期三）在怡保霹雳州总部发表文告：

撤销霹雳州议长西华古玛诉讼案件的法官已经自我矛盾并且超越权限

怡保高庭在昨天撤销霹雳州议长西华古玛针对拿督甘尼申一系列突袭、暴力及非法囚禁他所提出的诉讼，并谕令西华古玛负责堂费。

我要提出3个原因，表达我对于这个判决的彻底失望：

1. 当阿查哈莫哈末法官表示，在联邦宪法第72（1）条文下，“所有在州议会所作出的有效议程都不能被带上法庭挑战”，故法庭不能干预霹雳州5月7日的州议会，因此撤销西华古玛的诉讼；然而他却在同时违反自己提出的上述条件，指2009年5月7日召开的议会，开除原告西华古玛作为议长，并委任被告拿督甘尼申为议长的决定是令人信服的，而且是州议会的公平决定。

2. 关于谁才是合法议长的课题，并不是这项诉讼的主题，因此这名法官已经超越了权限（在他的司法权之外），指定开除西华古玛及委任拿督甘尼申是令人信服并获得州议会公平判决的决定。

3. 有经验的法官应该不会撤销这项诉讼，因为这项诉讼是针对一系列突袭、暴力及非法囚禁而不是关于州议会的议程。

目前的霹雳州危机中，法官们作出了许多荒谬的判决或没有根据法律依据的判决（前上诉庭法官拿督陈炘铠Dato’NH CHAN评语），阿查哈莫哈末法官的判决为此再增加一个荒谬的例子。

拿督倪可汉