Legal debate rages on over suspensions

(The Star) – Legal opinions continue to differ on Perak State Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar’s suspension of Mentri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abd Kadir and his exco members.

Some lawyers said it was arbitrary but others felt it was grounded in law.

In interpreting the orders, senior lawyer A. Silvanathan from Ipoh said the Speaker’s move was made according to Order 72(1), Order 72 (2), Order 89 and Order 90.

While Order 72 (1) read that matters affecting the powers and privileges of the assembly could be brought before the Committee of Privileges, Order 72 (2) stated that a member could bring to the Speaker’s notice of an alleged breach of privilege when the House was not sitting, who will then refer it to the committee before reporting it to the house.

Silvanathan also said there was no specific standing order governing Sivakumar’s decision to suspend and bar the people from the state assembly as Order 89 and 90 stated that the Speaker could interpret the case in anyway and impose penalties based on cases in Commonwealth countries.

He, however, said the decision to suspend Dr Zambry for 18 months and his exco members for 12 months seemed arbitrary which could be subjected to a motion in the assembly.

“It (the penalty) has to be governed based on principles of natural justice and must reflect the justice of the case,” he said, adding that Barisan Nasional could take the matter up in the assembly.

Lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar said Sivakumar’s decision should not be ignored as he was the Speaker who made the decision based on his own interpretation of the Standing Order.

He said that the only thing Barisan could do was to challenge the matter in court.