Karpal Singh (pic) did not question the right of the Perak Sultan to appoint a menteri besar, but only challenged the manner in which the Ruler dismissed Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, the High Court heard today.
Lawyer Gobind Singh Deo said the Ruler was a constitutional monarch and he could not act outside the Perak Constitution.
"Karpal did not question the Ruler's prerogative to appoint a menteri besar, but his contention is that such power can only be exercised when there is a vacancy," Gobind said in his submission at the close of the defence's case
Karpal was alleged to have said that the removal of Mohammad Nizar as mentri besar of Perak by the Sultan could be questioned in a court of law.
The charge under section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act carries a maximum RM5,000 fine or three years' jail, or both if convicted.
Karpal's defence is that he offered a legal opinion and not a threat to the Ruler, who was once the Lord President of the then Supreme Court.
Gobind said there was a constitutional crisis in Perak when three Pakatan Rakyat assemblymen left the loose coalition and became aligned to Barisan Nasional.
In the 2008 election, PR, consisting of PKR, DAP and PAS captured power in Perak by winning 31 of the 59 seats in the state legislative assembly.
Gobind said Karpal's contention was that it was for the assembly to determine whether Mohammad Nizar had enjoyed the majority support of the assemblymen.
"The ruler could not call 32 assemblymen to the palace to determine whether the menteri besar has lost support. This is against Article 33 (1) of the Constitution," he said.
He said Karpal's statement during his press conference that he would sue the Sultan could not by any stretch of imagination be said to be an offence under sedition law.
"The law allows for Rulers to be sued and it is for this reason that the Special Court was set up in 1993," Gobind said.
He said the charge against the veteran lawyer could not be sustained as it was unconstitutional.
"The accused has given evidence that the prosecution has discriminated him as there were others who made worse seditious remarks, but no action was taken," he said.
He urged the court to acquit Karpal as the defence had succeeded in raising serious doubt in the prosecution's case.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Noorin Badaruddin said Karpal had uttered seditious words and his intention was irrelevant for the prosecution to prove.
"He has questioned the prerogative of the Sultan under the constitution," she said, adding the statement was made in the midst of a tense political crisis then.
Noorin said Karpal was not offering a legal opinion, but was threatening the Sultan not to appoint a new menteri besar and the executive council. She said Karpal was angry with the Sultan for not appointing a menteri besar from PR.
" His words have the tendency to create hatred towards the Ruler," she said, adding that Karpal's defence was a bare denial.
Noorin said Karpal's action of giving an ultimatum to the Ruler meant he had exceeded the norm and custom of the ruler-subject relationship.
She said the Attorney-General, who is also the public prosecutor, had discretion under the law who he wanted to charge and the court could not venture to inquire into that matter.
Judge Azman Abdullah will deliver his ruling on February 21.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.