(note this post may contain mistakes as it is paraphrased. Full judgment will be posted soon and this post will be removed by the end of the day)
1109 no order as to costs by consent. Question 1 answered in affirmative, question 2 answered that extraneous means possible, question 3 if mb doesn’t resign, post can be deemed vacant. However all is not lost, nizar still able to move a no confidence motion in housev zambry or make rep to sultan that zambry no longer commands majority.
1105: word “shall” is mandatory so if nizar’s request to dissolve was refused, nizar must resign. If nizar doesn’t resign, nizar went v 16(6) and sultan can remove. Appeal dismissed
1100: Court rules affirmative to question 1 n no need house vote to question 2 meaning sultans action to deem nizar’s post vacant is valid. For question 3, court agrees that sultan may remove MB n appoint new MB who commands confidence of majority of members.
1054: Goes in depth of Amir Kahar, n says Ningkan is distinguishable. Quotes Raja Azlan Shah in Loh Kooi Choon to say that our constitution must be read without reference to other constitutions. See also KWK. Agree with Raus that it will lead to absurdity if under 16(6) one may only establish loss of confidence after votein house. Extraneous evidence is accepted following kadir Sulaiman in Amir Kahar eg concession by MB, resignation etc
1047: J deals with question whether vote in house required n effect of case of ningkan. AG says that factors in ningkan are distinguishable ie assembly in ningkan was in session. Also ref to Amir Kahar and Akintola. Goes into facts of those cases.
1043: J discusses 16(6) & 36(2). There was no vote of no confidence. But request for dissolution, following court of appeal, was made under 16(6). Court of appeal was justified to say so.
1039: J speaks about state of affairs as of 4feb. Court of appeal was correct. Nizar knew as of 4 feb that he lost support of majority. It was a request under 16(6).
1035: J now goes to the questions. Interpreting 16(6) Perak constitution. MB if ceases to command confidence can ask under 16(6) for dissolution but if sultan refuses to dissolve then MB must resign. No dispute that MB asked for dissolution. But was it under 16(6) or 36(2). HCT did not believe state legal adviser but court of appeal reversed HCT per Raus Sharif.
1031: J goes thru constitution n principles in interpreting the same. See hinds, teh, nordin salleh.
1026: Najib presented sultan letter showing majority aligned to bn, brought 31 ADUNs to meet HRH who pledged support to BN. HRH spoke to 4 ADUNs incl Bota. 1pm 5th feb nizar had meeting with sutan, sultan later issues press statement saying sultan refused to dissolve n that MB post vacant.
1024: J going thru Hee’s actions. Sultan receives 3 ltrs on the jumpers’ positions saying they lost confidence in nizar
1019: J narrates the 3 jumpers fr pr to bn, purportedly resigning, but all 3 refute resignations
1014: arifin zakaria delivers judgment of court – appears to be unanimous, judge now reads grounds, going thru chronology
1011: court convenes, Philip introducing parties
1006: fyi, Hj Sulaiman is in shah alam court for trial n can’t get away. Team nizar rep by Philip Koh, Chan Kok Keong, Nga Hock Cheh, Ranjit Singh, Razlan Hadri, Amer Hamzah, Leong Cheok Keng, Hanipa Maidin, Zulqarnian Lukman, Joanne Leong, Cheang Lek Choy, myself
1004: people getting edgy, crt staff ready, appearance by judges imminent
959: still waiting for court to appear
(Visited 341 times, 341 visits today)
No comments:
Post a Comment