Lawyers defend backdated proclamation, cite MB’s ‘continuity of office

 Lawyers acting for five 'chieftains' say the menteri besar's post is a continuous administrative institution that differs from the individual who helms the post.

Lawyers for the four ‘undangs’ and Tunku Besar Tampin contended that the proclamation signed by Ismail Lasim was valid, despite the menteri besar previously claiming he was coerced and that the document was invalid.

PETALING JAYA:

Lawyers acting for five Negeri Sembilan chieftains, some of whose appointments are disputed, have defended menteri besar Ismail Lasim’s signing of an April 19 proclamation purporting to remove Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir as Yang Dipertuan Besar.

Responding to former Umno leader Shahril Hamdan, the lawyers said the post of menteri besar was a continuous administrative institution that differed from the individual who helmed the post.

“The menteri besar functions as an official entity in the government. The constitutional powers, duties and executive rights are tied to the post, not the individual who holds it or the political party they are from.

“Therefore, anyone who holds the post has the legal capacity to carry out duties and sign official documents on behalf of the institution of the menteri besar,” they said in a statement.

This meant that a new menteri besar who took office had the authority to sign official instruments needed by the government, the menteri besar’s office, or any state institution, said the lawyers.

“From a governance perspective, if every change of leadership requires all processes, proclamations or official decisions to start from scratch, it would affect the administration’s continuity and delivery of services.”

The statement was released by Asmawi Ismail, Azam Aziz, Emirul Sarifudin Nor Azmi and Zainuddin Omar – the lawyers representing the four purported undangs and the Tunku Besar Tampin.

Yesterday, Shahril questioned whether the April 19 proclamation could be considered valid when it was signed by Ismail months later, saying it was akin to backdating the proclamation.

He acknowledged that he was unsure of the legal position but said there could be grounds to argue that such a process was not permissible.

The lawyers contended that the proclamation signed by Ismail was valid, despite the menteri besar previously claiming he was coerced and that the document was invalid.

They also said the menteri besar’s signature on the proclamation was part of fulfilling the process of the removal of a Yang Dipertuan Besar.

Despite initially denying the validity of the proclamation, Ismail later endorsed a statement by his 10 executive council members purportedly affirming Tuanku Muhriz’s removal as ruler.

However, the Attorney-General’s Chambers and Dewan Keadilan dan Undang said the statement had no legal effect. - FMT