Lawyer: Selangor assembly has no power to summon non-member

The Selangor state legislative assembly has no power to cite a non-member for contempt of the assembly, the Federal Court in Putrajaya heard today.

Lawyer Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin submitted that the summons issued by the state assembly to his client Hafarizam Harun to answer contempt charges cannot be considered as part of the assembly proceedings.

He said this was because the summons was not in relation to a state assembly resolution but was on Hafarizam’s alleged conduct in sending a legal letter of demand to the solicitors of the then-speaker of the state assembly, Teng Chang Khim to demand payment of RM40,000 legal costs pursuant to a court order.

“Sending a legal letter of demand between solicitors for costs which had been ordered by court does not at all involve the privileges and powers of the state assembly,” he contended.

Firoz Hussein said the subject matter relating to the summons were outside the parliamentary privilege and thus the court could scrutinise the state assembly’s decision on the matter as it was made beyond its (state assembly) power.

He said the state assembly did not have the power to discipline Hafarizam because he was not a member of the state assembly but merely a solicitor to a member of the state assembly - the former Port Klang assemblyperson Badrul Hisham Abdullah.

Firoz Hussein argued that the High Court and Court of Appeal were right to declare the summons issued to Hafarizam as unconstitutional and ultra vires the federal constitution and the Selangor state constitution.

He also said the state assembly could be sued in a court of law and was not immune from the law, adding that the courts have the power to grant declaratory relief against Parliament and state assembly.

Senior federal counsel Amarjeet Singh who appeared for the Attorney-General’s Chambers, acting as amicus curiae (friend of the court) said the Selangor constitution nor the state assembly’s standing orders or the contempt of the house (state of Selangor) Enactment 2009 provided for an offence of contempt committed outside the walls of the state assembly.

“The appellants have failed to show which provision in the Schedule of the Selangor constitution they relied on to make the resolution (to issue the summons to Hafarizam),” he said.

A five-member bench chaired by Chief Judge of Malaya Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin heard the appeal brought by the state assembly, its House Rights and Privileges Committee secretary Mohamad Yasid Bidin and the House Rights and Privileges committee.

Appealing against a High Court ruling

The appellants were appealing against a High Court ruling that quashed the state assembly’s summons compelling Hafarizam to appear before the committee to answer charges for contempt for allegedly sending a letter containing language deemed indecent, insolent and treatening to Teng’s counsel to demand payment for costs pursuant to a court order.

Hafarizam succeeded in his bid at the High Court to quash the summons and the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision after rejecting the appellants’ appeal.

Counsel Gopal Sri Ram, representing the appellants, earlier submitted that the state assembly could not be sued as it does not have a legal personality.

He said the state assembly was immune from court challenge accorded under Article 72(2) of the federal constitution.

“The entire origin of the proceedings was a proceeding that took place in the state assembly and the summons was issued pursuant to the state assembly’s resolution,” he said.

The Federal Court panel reserved its decision on the appeal to a date yet to be fixed.

- Bernama