KUALA LUMPUR: The Dewan Rakyat speaker is misleading the court by relying extensively on English cases on parliamentary privileges to oppose a lawsuit brought by former MP Tawfik Ismail, a lawyer says.
Rosli Dahlan, who represented Tawfik, said unlike Malaysia, the UK had no written constitution.
“The UK has no rulers in each of its regions with exclusive power over religion and custom,” he told reporters regarding the salient points of his submission before High Court judge Justice Kamaludin Md Said in chambers today.
Rosli said the UK had no institution like the Conference of Rulers (COR) with a unique deliberative function in relation to national policy under Article 38(2) of the Federal Constitution.
In Malaysia, he argued, Parliament was not supreme as it was in the UK.
“The idea that as a result of its privileges, the Parliament of Malaysia can do whatever it likes and in any way it likes, and the courts can do nothing, is fallacious in the context of Malaysia,” he said.
Rosli said privileges, most of which are customary, common law or statutory, were subject to the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of Malaysia.
Tawfik, formerly the Sungai Benut MP, is seeking to stop the tabling of a bill to amend the Shariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 to enhance its powers.
The son of the late Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman, Malaysia’s deputy prime minister from 1970 to 1973, filed his application in court in March, naming Dewan Rakyat Speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia and its secretary Roosme Hamzah as defendants.
He claimed the private member’s bill proposed by Marang MP and PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang did not conform with the requirements of the Standing Orders of the Dewan Rakyat.
Hadi tabled a motion on April 6 last year to introduce his bill but it was not debated.
Rosli said Pandikar did not deny the motion was tabled without the consent of the COR.
He said any challenge on the exclusive rights of the rulers and the COR in matters concerning Islam could constitute sedition.
“The law of parliamentary privileges is subordinate to the law of sedition,” he said, adding that the application to strike out the suit should be dismissed and the merit of the case be heard.
In August, Pandikar and Roosme asked the court to strike out the suit as it encroached on parliamentary privileges under Articles 62 and 63 of the Federal Constitution.
Article 62 (1) states that subject to the provisions of the constitution and of federal law, each House of Parliament (Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara) shall regulate its own procedure.
Article 63 states that the validity of any proceedings in either House of Parliament, or any committee, shall not be questioned in any court.
Meanwhile, government lawyer Shamsul Bolhassan said Tawfik’s action was frivolous, unsustainable and an abuse of court process.
He said the suit was also premature as Hadi’s motion had not yet been debated in the Dewan Rakyat.
“The motion still has to go through several processes,” he said, adding that Tawfik had no right at this stage to challenge it.
Kamaludin will deliver his ruling on Feb 19. FMT
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.