Perak shadow on Gobind’s suit challenging his suspension

Written by Chua Sue-Ann, The Edge  

Legal precedents arising from the Perak crisis-related cases today loomed over Puchong Member of Parliament Gobind Singh Deo's suit challenging his 12-month suspension from the Dewan Rakyat.

Gobind's father and lead counsel Karpal Singh argued that the court has the jurisdiction to hear Gobind's suit which involves the decision to suspend the latter after the Dewan Rakyat voted on a motion to do so.

Karpal told the court it was bound by its own rulings on Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution following Perak Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir's suit against former Perak Speaker V Sivakumar.

The Federal Court in April quashed Sivakumar's suspension of Zambry and six Barisan Nasional (BN) Perak state executive council members, after ruling it had the jurisdiction to hear matters involving decisions taken by the state assembly's Rights and Privileges Committee.

Karpal noted Article 72(1) was similar to Article 63(1) of the Federal Constitution which states that "the validity of any proceedings in either House of Parliament or any committee thereof shall not be questioned in any court."

Both articles were similar except that Article 72(1) related to state legislative assembly proceedings while Article 63(1) related to the affairs of state legislative assemblies.

Karpal, who is Bukit Gelugor MP, submitted that the Federal Court in Zambry's case held that the court was "empowered to ascertain whether a particular power that has been claimed has in fact been provided for".

"The Federal Court has done us a service," Karpal said, reminding the court that it was bound by the earlier rulings.

Gobind filed the civil suit on April 23, naming Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, Dewan Rakyat secretary Datuk Roosme Hamzah and the government as defendants.

On March 16, Pandikar suspended Gobind from his “duties as a member of parliament for 12 months” for being in contempt of the House and for linking then deputy prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to the controversial murder of a Mongolian woman.

The first-term MP was suspended with immediate effect after the House voted on the motion, which was tabled by Nazri.

Karpal said the court needed to examine whether there was a "gross abuse of power" by Pandikar and Nazri in Gobind's suspension.

"We say there has been violation of [Gobind's] constitutional rights and non-compliance with the rules of natural justice and perversity in the terms of the motion," Karpal said.

There was no provision in Standing Order 44(3) for Gobind to be deprived of his renumeration, benefits and allowances, which "amount to an entitlement and not merely a privilege" as MP, Karpal said.

Karpal pointed out that he was suspended for two years on Nov 22, 1984 but without deprivation of his renumeration, benefits and allowances.

Karpal, who is DAP National Chairman, also pointed out that he was given a chance to defend himself even if his speech was later expunged from parliamentary Hansards while Gobind was not allowed to speak in his own defense.

Meanwhile, Senior Federal Counsel Azizah Nawawi argued that Gobind's suspension was not justiciable because it was a decision taking while parliamentary proceedings were ongoing.

Azizah said the pertinent difference between Gobind and Zambry's suit was that the latter's case involved alleged contempt in proceedings "outside" the Perak assembly while Gobind was cited for contempt during a parliamentary sitting.

Judicial Commissioner Mohammad Ariff Yusof then questioned Azizah on whether there can be a distinction drawn between proceedings "inside" and "outside" the House, reminding counsels that a decision taken by the Speaker was deemed as emanating form the House.

Azizah said Zambry was issued the suspension letter by Sivakumar, in his capacity as Speaker, when the Perak assembly was not in session.

Ariff then directed counsels to return on Sept 10 to submit on the definition of "proceedings" to assist arguments on the doctrine of separation of powers.

The judicial commissioner also directed that "proceedings" be given broad and ordinary meaning, as it was not defined in the Federal Constitution and Interpretations Act.

In his suit, Gobind is seeking a declaration that the suspension is null and void, and unconstitutional and an order that he is free to attend forthcoming sittings of the Dewan Rakyat.

Among other reliefs, Gobind isalso seeking a declaration that he is entitled to the remuneration and other benefits as MP granted to him under the Constitution.