Dipetik dari http://dongtalk.blogspot.com/ Blog Dato' Shamsuddin Nawawi
Kalau Mahkamah perintahkan seseorang itu dihukum mati maka permohonan untuk hukum penjara seumur hidup itu terbatal lah dengan sendirinya!
Sama lah juga kalau Mahkamah perintahkan lesen memandu si Anu itu dibatalkan maka semua sekali lah batal baik kelas B dan D atau apa-apa kelas pun. Jangan lah pulak kata, si Anu itu masih boleh pakai Lesen L dia sebab mahkamah tak sebut pun dalam perintahnya.
Kalau Mahkamah batalkan keputusan dan perbuatan Speaker mengantung kehadiran ahli Dewan maka akibat dari perintah itu, ahli Dewan itu bolehlah hadir dan turut serta prosiding Dewan itu seolah-olah apa yang Speaker buat itu tidak pernah wujud!
Itu pun susah nak faham ke?
Ulasan.
Agaknya Dato' Shamsuddin ni terlupa Artikel 72 Perlembagaan Persekutuan seperti dibawah ini(1) Kesahan apa-apa prosiding di dalam Dewan Undangan mana-mana Negeri tidaklah boleh dipersoalkan di dalam mana-mana mahkamah.
4 comments:
Dear Pak Lubis,
Lawyers are supposed to be in Court fully prepared with authourities and the relevant laws when they argue their cases. In this case, I know Tuan Haji Sulaiman Abdullah, the leading counsel for Sivakumar. He was my lecturer way back in 1979 and I know him to be very through and well prepared. I am sure he had argued the case with the Article 72 of the Constitution in his mind and all other relevant laws.
Laws are applied according to the facts of the case. In this case, the issue is whether Art. 72 should be invoked and applied. What was the facts of the case. Did Sivakumar make the pronouncement of the suspension in the Dewan or was it outside of the Dewan by way of Press Release.
Yes, I agree, if it was done in the proper proceedings of the Dewan, Art. 72 must be invoked. But NOT in this case and that is why I suspect the Federal Ct had decided the case in the Order as granted.
The Order granted was that the suspension of the MB & 6 Others were declared null & void and that be the case, the effect of the Order is that there was no suspension at all. Zambri & 6 others are therefore put back to status quo.
I wrote this posting in response to the argument that Zambri can come to the Dewan but could not participate, which is ridiculous.
NH Chan or Lim Kit Siang can have their own ideas on the court's order but as we are law abiding citizens, we must respect the orders and judgments of the Court as it stands. Unless there is another Higher Ct to revoke or amend the present court order.
It will be interesting to read the Grounds of Judgment when it is released.
Thank You DSN.
During my study in ITM and now UiTM from a diploma level to a Degree (not as a law student)but as an accounting student was informed that the Federal Constitution is above all other Act in the Malaysia (correct me if I am wrong).
For the Federal Court which is the highest court in the country to ignore what is mentioned in the Federal Constitution is something that a layman like me is puzzled about. Further, no appeal can be made at another higher court because there is no court higher than Federal Court.
Anyway lets us hope that when the Ground of Judgement is release will clear people understanding of the case.
Pak Lubis!
Aku rasa Dato tu pelupa orangnya! Atau dia memang antara yang tak berapa faham (bukan bodoh) tentang bentuk keputusan mahkamah.
Jangan samakan hujjah kes jenayah dengan kes summon! Jangan samakan makan bubur dengan makan nasi biasa! Walaupoun ianya masuk dalam perut melalui tekak dan menjadi taik.
Jangan bawa hujjah kedai kopi untuk mengizinkan pencabulan perlembagaan dan undang-undang negara!
Tok Peran..
Dato ini adalah orang UMNO tentunya ia bercakap gaya orang UMNO. Bekas Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan, NH Chan mempunyai pandangan yang berbeza dengan Hakim yang memutuskan kes Sivakumar tersebut.
Kita rakyat biasa hanya menunggu apa keputusan sebenar .
Post a Comment