I watched Najib Abdul Razak’s swearing-in-ceremony shown ‘live’ on TV3 at 4pm yesterday, and notice two very pertinent matters.
First, Najib swore in the name of Allah before the Agong that his name is ‘Mohd (Muhammad) Najib bin Hj Abdul Razak’.
This contradicts the name he gave when he took an oath before a Commissioner of Oaths in September 2011, in affirming two affidavits that were filed in court.
The second, and more important, issue involves the oath of office and allegiance the and oath of secrecy that he affirmed this time.
Najib followed strictly each and every word of the oaths as stipulated in the Sixth Schedule of the constitution. He got it right this time around.
This proves that the two oaths that he had affirmed (left) on April 3, 2009 as the sixth premier, werenot in accordancewith the oaths as stated in the Sixth Schedule.
It means that Najib did not take his oath in accordance with the constitution the first time four years ago and therefore, he had no right or authority to exercise the functions of the PM since April 3, 2009.
The constitution clearly states that a minister must take the two oaths before the Agong before he can exercise his function. Otherwise it can be considered unlawful and in violation of the constitution.
First, Najib swore in the name of Allah before the Agong that his name is ‘Mohd (Muhammad) Najib bin Hj Abdul Razak’.
This contradicts the name he gave when he took an oath before a Commissioner of Oaths in September 2011, in affirming two affidavits that were filed in court.
The second, and more important, issue involves the oath of office and allegiance the and oath of secrecy that he affirmed this time.
Najib followed strictly each and every word of the oaths as stipulated in the Sixth Schedule of the constitution. He got it right this time around.
This proves that the two oaths that he had affirmed (left) on April 3, 2009 as the sixth premier, werenot in accordancewith the oaths as stated in the Sixth Schedule.It means that Najib did not take his oath in accordance with the constitution the first time four years ago and therefore, he had no right or authority to exercise the functions of the PM since April 3, 2009.
The constitution clearly states that a minister must take the two oaths before the Agong before he can exercise his function. Otherwise it can be considered unlawful and in violation of the constitution.
Validity of actions
Therefore, what Najib did all the while since taking office on April 3, 2009 can be considered as illegal and invalid, including appointing the members of his cabinet.
This also includes the function of advising the Agong on the dissolution of Parliament, as Najib did on April 3, 2013, for the 13th general election. So, the dissolution of Parliament under these circumstances can be considered to be null and void.
If Najib claims that the oaths taken the first time in 2009 are both correct and in accordance with the constitution, why then did he change his oaths yesterday to the ones stated in the Sixth Schedule?
As I’ve said in previous articles about the oath of office, this issue cannot be taken lightly. The bigger issue is whether or not Najib has subscribed to the constitution.
If he can show blatant disregard for the constitution, how will he convince citizens that whatever he does is in accordance with the rule of law?
This also includes the function of advising the Agong on the dissolution of Parliament, as Najib did on April 3, 2013, for the 13th general election. So, the dissolution of Parliament under these circumstances can be considered to be null and void.If Najib claims that the oaths taken the first time in 2009 are both correct and in accordance with the constitution, why then did he change his oaths yesterday to the ones stated in the Sixth Schedule?
As I’ve said in previous articles about the oath of office, this issue cannot be taken lightly. The bigger issue is whether or not Najib has subscribed to the constitution.
If he can show blatant disregard for the constitution, how will he convince citizens that whatever he does is in accordance with the rule of law?
MAT ZAIN IBRAHIM is former chief of the Kuala Lumpur Criminal Investigation Department.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.