Judgment reserved in Jeyakumar's 'MP funds' suit

The Federal Court has deferred delivery of its decision on whether or not to remit Dr D Jeyakumar’s case to the Kuala Lumpur High Court, in relation to how the Perak Development Department is channeling public funds to the Sungai Siput parliamentary seat which he holds.

Court of Appeal president Justice Md Raus Sharif, who is leading a five-member bench, said the court recognises that this is the first case of its kind in Malaysia and, as such, it needs time to arrive at a decision.

"We will issue a written judgment and will read the submissions from both parties," he said today.

The other members on the bench are Chief Judge of Malaya Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin, and Federal Court judges Hashim Yusof, Suriyadi Halim Omar and Ahmad Maarop.

Lawyer Ambiga Sreenevasan (right in photo) said it would be a travesty of justice if the apex court decides not to revert the case to the High Court.

She said this is case of public interest involving the proper use of public funds as, at present, opposition MPs do not know how constituency allocations are being disbursed, as this is being done via BN representatives.

"The respondents have not even replied to our affidavits and yet they have managed to strike out our case,” she submitted.

"There are cases where the Perak Development Department was said to have channeled funds to an orphanage and two schools. However, Jeyakumar on checking, the supposed recipients had yet to receive (the money).”

Jeyakumar has named the director-general of the Implementation Unit of the Prime Minister's Department, the director of the Perak Development Department and the federal government as respondents.

The Kuala Lumpur High Court had on Feb 25 last yeargranted Jeyakumar leave to proceed with a judicial review, to challenge the government's action not to give or provide details of its annual allocation of RM1 million to his constituency.

On Sept 23, the same High Court refused the federal government a stay of the judicial review proceedings, leading to the appeal being filed. 

Last October, the Court of Appeal had unanimously allowed the federal government’s appeal and dismissed Jeyakumar's application, on the ground that disbursement of such allocations is entrusted to specific government officials.

Although the application was filed by Jeyakumar, several opposition lawmakers are also having an eye on the judicial review application.

This is because like Jeyakumar, they do not receive a portion of the RM250 million development fund allocated for MPs nationwide as at present it is allocated only to BN.

The opposition MPs are represented by their counsel Aston Paiva, and Shamila Balasubramaniam.

The lawmakers include Kuala Krai MP Dr Hatta Ramli, Teluk Intan MP M Manogaran, Kota Raja MP Siti Mariah Mahmud, Bukit Bendera MP Liew Chin Tong. Others are Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad, Lembah Pantai's Nurul Izzah Anwar, Chua Tian Chang (Batu) and Yusmadi Md Yusof (Balik Pulau).

Is policy matters justiciable?

Central to the issues concerned is whether policy matters by the executive is justiciable where the court can review its decision.

This follows Justice Md Raus question whether the court had jurisdiction to interfere with government policy.

Ambiga agreed that on issues of national security or treaties, it may be so but not on matters pertaining to dispersing of public funds for the elected representatives’ constituency.

“This is the power that the court can exercise its jurisdiction to review. If the government has acted mala fide against the applicant we are entitled to challenge the decision.”

“Some of the NGOs in the constituency and other organisations like schools need the funds. The disbursement must be done in a transparent manner. This is not a frivolous application as this concerns public funds,” she said.

Senior federal counsel S Narkunavathy submitted that it was not like the funds were not disbursed to the constituency.

The disbursement is assigned by the prime minister through the director-general of the Implementation Coordination Unit and is available on the application of MPs and NGOs

“Jeyakumar's grievance is not that the allocation was not spent for Sungai Siput but the allocation was not channel through him. Furthermore, the director-general of the Implementation Coordination Unit has the discretion to consider where it is channeled,” she said.

Jeyakumar: It should not take this long

Jeyakumar said this is not a frivolous application and that the case should be reverted back to the High Court.

“The respondents can answer to where the funds are channel to in court. They should explain the policy how the funds are disbursed.”

“These are people's money but they are giving it to Umno, MIC and Gerakan and this is not right,” said Jeyakumar.

He cited the case of the department channeling funds to the orphanage and schools, stating it is only after he lodged a police report that the funds were dispersed.

“It is only after I lodged a police report that the people who is supposed to channel it dispersed it. We should be transparent in all dealings as this concerns public funds.

Manogaran, who was also present, said he was concerned the Court of Appeal judgment was based on a factual error that Jeyakumar had received the funds where else he has not received anything.

Hence, he said the Court of Appeal judgment was surmised by these wrong fact and it cannot be accepted.

Furthermore, he agreed that the case should not take too long.

“The Federal Court should not take long in deriving a decision as the case could be reverted back to the High Court for it to be properly ventilated and decided, up to the Federal Court again. Don't worry as to what the government is going to say as the judge's work is to dispense fairness and justice.”