Tuesday, March 03, 2009

IPOH HIGH COURT JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER RIDWAN IBRAHIM HAD ERRED IN LAW

The Ipoh High Court Judicial Commission Ridwan Ibrahim who heard the hearing to restrain Perak State Speaker V. Sivakumar from convening any unlawful meetings purporting to be state assemblies had actually ERRED IN LAW since he had demanded that the State Legal Advisor should represent him rather than his personal lawyers. The reasoning is that since at the Kuala Lumpur High Court in the suit between Datuk Seri Nizar and Datuk Zambry, the State Legal Advisor's seem to represent the 'illegal and dubious' Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry, so how can these government officials represent both sides - conflict of interest.

Judicial Commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim, who heard from lawyers on both sides in Chambers, made his decision under Section 44 of Specific Relief Act by granted an order to restrain Perak Speaker V. Sivakumar from convening any unlawful meetings purporting to be state assemblies but it was not retrospective.

Furthermore, if we were to look at section 24 in GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS ACT 1956 (REVISED 1988), the words used is "may", and not the word "shall" , which clearly means that it is optional, and the State Official can be represented by other lawyers of his personal choice.

The most important factor now need to be considered is that the State Assembly sitting had successfully been convened and decisions made and this case could just be considered OUT OF TIME and JUST ACADEMIC.

The time has come for these sort of bias Judicial Commissioners and Judicial Officers to be stripped off their academic qualifications and positions while punishing them to do ' public toilet cleaning' so that they will know how humiliating it is to go against the wishes of the rakyat.

These unscrupulous government officials need to realise as custodian of the rakyat they need to work within the confines of the Laws of Malaysia and not under UMNOputra LAWS.

news courtesy of Charles Hector

2 comments:

Chauncey Gardener said...

Judicial Comminsioner Ridzwan also erred in another area :

Perak Speaker can appoint private lawyers — loyarburok.com
MARCH 3 — The restriction in the Government Proceedings Act on “public officers” using private lawyers only with the permission of the Attorney General does not apply to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Perak defending a suit brought against him in his capacity as Speaker.

Thus, the Ipoh High Court decision to bar Tommy Thomas and others from acting for Speaker Sivakumar is, with respect, wrong.

It appears that Ipoh High Court Judicial Commissioner Yang Arif Tuan Ridwan Ibrahim has ruled that private lawyers cannot appear on behalf of Speaker of the Perak State Assembly Sivakumar in the litigation against him brought by Umno Assemblypersons because of the Government Proceedings Act 1956.

This decision is of particular interest to those concerned with the right of litigants to have an advocate to champion his cause in Court without fear or favour. Regrettably, and with respect, it appears that this decision does not seem to be in line with the provisions of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 read together with the Federal Constitution.

Section 24(3) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 seems to suggest that the State Legal Adviser must retain advocates and solicitors in order to act on behalf of the “State government” or “State officers” in “civil proceedings by or against the Government of a State or a State officer”. This follows on from sections 24(1) and (2) which provide that law officers (meaning lawyers from the Attorney General’s Chambers) “may” act on behalf of “public officers” who are sued by virtue of his office.

Thus, the law allows for the Attorney General’s Chambers to act or to appoint private lawyers to act for cases against public officers.

The term “public officer” is not defined in the Government Proceedings Act 1956. The Interpretation Act has the following definitions:-

“public office” means an office in any of the public services;

“public officer” means a person lawfully holding, acting in or exercising the functions of a public office;

“public services” means the public services mentioned in Article 132 (1) of the Federal Constitution;

Article 132(1) of the Federal Constitution lists out several public services such as the armed forces, the judicial and legal services, the police service and the general public service. In a nutshell, the public services are what is commonly called government service or civil service.

But Article 132(3)(b) is instructive. It categorically states that “the public service shall not be taken to comprise” the Speakers of Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies of the State.

Hence, it appears that the restriction in the Government Proceedings Act on public officers using private lawyers only with the permission of the Attorney General does not apply to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Perak defending a suit brought against him in his capacity as Speaker.

Thus, the Ipoh High Court decision to bar Tommy Thomas and others from acting for Speaker Sivakumar is, with respect, wrong. — Malaysian Bar Council website

What kind of legal minds does Malaysia have in its courts ???

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,酒店,