| High Court: AG can intervene Nizar vs Zambry suit |
| Politics & Government 2009 | |||
| Written by Chua Sue-Ann | |||
| Thursday, 23 April 2009 17:55 | |||
|
Judge Datuk Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim, in his ruling after a 15-minute deliberation, said the AG could participate in the matter considering the "magnitude and implication" of the suit that involved interpretations of the Perak state constitution. Abdul Aziz also said the matter was a "novel" one as it involved the appointment of a menteri besar (Zambry) while the previous menteri besar (Nizar) did not resign and the Perak state assembly was not dissolved. Nizar's lead counsel Sulaiman Abdullah argued against the AG's participation on grounds that the matter between Nizar and Zambry did not directly involve the federal government. Sulaiman also said the AG's application and supporting affidavit did not clearly show how the AG could be helpful in the matter, adding that the counsels of both parties in the suit were sufficient to assist the court. The AG appeared to have taken inconsistent positions in two separate matters (relating to the Perak crisis) before the Federal Court earlier and had appeared to consistently take positions that supported the Barisan Nasional. Abdul Aziz also tentatively fixed May 4 to hear Nizar's application to cross examine Perak state legal adviser Datuk Ahmad Kamal Mohd Shahid, unless Zambry's lead counsel Datuk Cecil Abraham did not object. Abraham told the court he had just been served the application earlier today and asked for time to study the request before taking a position. Sulaiman said he was requesting the cross examination in light of Nizar's recent affidavit describing Nizar's meeting with the Perak ruler Sultan Azlan Shah on Feb 4 and 5, which he said were inconsistent with the version described in Ahmad Kamal's affidavit. The substantive matters in the suit between the two menteris besar has been fixed for May 5 and 6 before Abdul Aziz here. Meanwhile, the Federal Court will hear an application on April 28 by Zambry to refer several points of law to the apex court.
|
|||
|
|