INDIVIDU BUTA, PEKAK DAN BISU LEBIH FAHAM ISU DI PERAK DARI SESETENGAH PEMBESAR NEGARA

Nizar telah memfailkan permohonan kepada Mahkamah Rayuan pada pukul 1420 13hb Mei 2009 melalui peguam beliau tetapi Mahkamah

Rayuan Putrajaya telah menetapkan 18hb Mei 2009 untuk mendengar rayuan Nizar bagi mengetepikan keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan pada 12hb Mei 2009 yang membenarkan penangguhan pelaksanaan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi.

Mahkamah Rayuan sementara itu terlalu sibuk sehinggalah 18hb Mei 2009 untuk mendengar kes Nizar (persepsi penulis). Mahkamah Rayuan hanya memerlukan sehari untuk permohonan mendengar kes Zambry dan membuat keputusan. Mungkin dalam kes Nizar mahkamah rayuan perlu masa untuk merujuk kesnya ke peringkat antarabangsa ( Queen Counsel agaknya) atau lebih tinggi dari itu.

Sila ikuti hujah dan afidavit Nizar kepada mahkamah rayuan di bawah ini. Ikuti hujah Zambry kenapa beliau perlu perintah "stay of execution".

Mahkamah dengar rayuan Nizar 18 Mei

KUALA LUMPUR,13 Mei (Hrkh) - Mahkamah Rayuan hari ini menetapkan 18 Mei ini untuk mendengar rayuan Dato' Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin bagi mengetepikan keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan semalam yang membenarkan penangguhan pelaksanaan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi.

Tarikh itu ditetapkan selepas Nizar memfailkan notis usul itu di pejabat Pendaftar Mahkamah Rayuan hari ini melalui firma guaman Tetuan Leong & Tan.

Kelmarin Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan bahawa Nizar ialah Menteri Besar Perak yang sah.

Turut disertakan bersama notis usul itu ialah sijil supaya kes itu disegerakan.

Bagaimanapun Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan, Dato' Ramly Ali membenarkan Dato' Seri Dr. Zamry Abdul Kadir kekal sebagai Menteri Besar Perak sehingga Mahkamah Rayuan menyelesaikan kes rayuannya terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi semalam yang mengisytiharkan Nizar sebagai Menteri Besar Perak yang sah.

Dalam afidavit sokongannya, Nizar berkata keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan semalam untuk memberikan perintah penggantungan itu kepada Zambry adalah salah dan beliau (Nizar) mengemukakan permohonan untuk membetulkan perkara itu.

Nizar berkata Mahkamah Tinggi telah membuat takrif yang betul terhadap Perkara 16 (6) Undang-Undang Tubuh Negeri Perak.

Beliau berkata sekiranya perintah pelaksanaan itu diberikan ia akan merampas haknya serta membuat keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi mengisytiharkannya menteri besar Perak sebagai sia-sia.

Menurutnya perintah yang diperoleh Zambry itu akan mengganggu pelaksanaan secara lancar dan baik pentadbiran kerajaan negeri Perak selaras dengan peruntukan Undang-Undang Tubuh Negeri Perak.

Nizar juga berkata perintah berkenaan akan mengelirukan rakyat negeri itu mengenai siapakah menteri besar yang sah serta menjadikan keadaan politik lebih tegang dan krisis perlembagaan lebih mendalam.
mks/Harakahdaily

=====================================================================
Court of Appeal to hear Nizar's application on Monday
S. Tamarai Chelvi and Giam Say Khoon

PUTRAJAYA (May 13, 2009) : The Court of Appeal will hear on Monday Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin's application to set aside a stay of execution order on the High Court decision declaring him the rightful mentri besar of Perak.

Nizar's application was filed at the Court of Appeal registry at 2.20pm today through his lawyers Messrs Leong and Tan.

He is seeking to set aside the stay of execution order granted to Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir by Court of Appeal judge Datuk Ramli Ali yesterday. Alternatively, Nizar wants the court to vary the stay order to include conditional terms, which are deemed fit and proper.

In his application, Nizar said a stay of execution order cannot be granted for declatory orders. He said special circumstances are in favour of him, for the court not to grant the stay order.

He also said there is no prejudice against Zambry if the stay order is not granted or not continued further.

In a supporting affidavit filed with the notice of motion, he said the Court of Appeal judge has erred in granting the stay order and the application was filed to correct the matter.

Nizar said that before May 11, 2009, he had never applied for any stay of execution order against Zambry as Nizar did not want to cause political instability and constitutional crisis in Perak to become even worse.

He said he waited for the High Court proceedings as usual and intended to respect the process and the decision of the High Court.

He said if the stay was granted it will;

> take away his rights and the High Court order which he had been waiting will become ineffective;

> disrupt and prevent the administration of Perak to be executed smoothly and in accordance with law;

> substantively, Zambry will carry out his responsibility, duties and functions illegally

> confuse the people as to who is the Mentri Besar as the High Court judgement stated that he is the MB

> confuse the Perak state government's officers and third parties as to the real status of the MB and his Exco members

> could cause political instabililty and constitutional crisis to become deeper

> cause undesirable emotions among the people as Nizar had been informed that the people had accepted the High Court decision well.

He added that the MB's post is to serve the people and that the post is "an office of trust", which means the MB is holding the trust for the people.

Nizar said the post does not belong to anyone personally and that Zambry or himself do not have personal rights on the post.

He said there is no prejudice towards Zambry if the stay is not given but if it was given it will be prejudice towards him.

Meanwhile, in Ipoh, state DAP chairman Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham said Zambry must not continue to present himself as the Mentri Besar because it is a contempt of court as the High Court had ruled that Mohammad Nizar is the rightful Mentri Besar.

In a statement, he said that although the Court of Appeal had granted Zambry a stay of execution, "it is without a doubt that until the High Court judgment is reversed by the Court of Appeal, Zambry remains an illegally appointed Mentri Besar".

He said a stay order merely gave one an opportunity to get the opinion of a higher court before the judgment of the lower court can be enforced.

Ngeh, who is a practising lawyer, said Zambry should not and cannot exercise the powers and the privileges of Mentri Besar, including going back to occupy the office of the Mentri Besar.

"Zambry also has no power to reinstate the state secretary and state legal adviser, who were suspended by the Pakatan Rakyat state government through its exco meeting on the night of May 11 (before the stay order was granted to Zambry)," he said.

Ngeh also said the statement by Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan that action cannot be taken by the state government against the state secretary and the state legal adviser was legally flawed.

"The state secretary and the state legal adviser are federal officers appointed by the Public Service Commission and the Judicial and Legal Service Commission, respectively, but when they are seconded to the state government, it has the authority over them as their employer," he said.

"Therefore, when they acted against the interest of the state government, they can be suspended from their duties pending formal complaints being lodged against them with the Public Service Commission and the Judicial and Legal Service Commission, respectively, and be dealt with under the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993.

"Any other interpretation will mean that federal officers can lord over the state governments with impunity. Therefore, the Pakatan Rakyat state government has acted within what is permitted in law."

Zambry's adviser and Gerakan deputy president Datuk Chang Ko Youn argued that when the Court of Appeal granted the stay "everything must remain status quo".

He said the reason for the Court of Appeal to grant the stay order was the state could not afford to have a vaccum and that there must be someone to head the government.

"The situation will remain status quo until the Court of Appeal decides whether to uphold the decision of the High Court or not," he said.

Barisan Nasional state speaker Datuk R. Ganesan said the removal of PR Speaker V. Sivakumar at the state assembly sitting last Thursday was "undoubtedly legal".

He said that when a motion was moved against the Speaker, he must not decide on the motion because he was the interested party and it was against the natural rule of justice.

Since Sivakumar could not rule on the motion, it was "natural" for Deputy Speaker Hee Yit Foong to replace him, "which had been done correctly and (with) the support of 31 assemblymen, they elected me (as the Speaker)".

"How could they say I am not the rightful Speaker? It was legally done and I have no doubt about it."

Ganesan also said he did not mention he was going to call for an emergency sitting of the assembly.

"We respect the decision of the High Court and I will leave it to the BN leadership to proceed with whatever action necessary," he said.
sun2surf