Gobind’s suspension: Court to rule on Sept 30

KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court has set Sept 30 to rule on whether Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo’s one-year suspension as Member of Parliament is valid.

Judicial Commissioner Mohd Ariff Mohd Yusof fixed the date after both parties completed their submissions Thursday, in which several key issues were raised.

In his submissions, Gobind’s counsel, his father and veteran lawyer Karpal Singh, cited the recent Federal Court decision in the case of Public Prosecutor v Kok Wah Kuan, which held that the “doctrine of separation of powers is not a provision of the Malaysian Constitution even though it influenced the framers of the Malaysian Constitution.”

“In light of the decision of the Federal Court that there is no separation of powers, more so, the courts have the right to pronounce on the validity of proceedings in either House of Parliament.

“This court is bound by that decision, ridiculous decision as it may be, but Yang Arif (Your Honor) is bound by it,” he submitted.

In that case, the Court of Appeal freed Kok, who was detained at the pleasure of the King after he was found guilty of killing his tuition teacher’s daughter when it (Court of Appeal) held that Section 92 (2) of the Child Act was unconstitutional as it gave the power to the executive to sentence a child convicted of murder.

The Federal Court later reversed that decision.

Senior Federal Counsel Azizah Nawawi, however, argued that while the doctrine may not be part of the Federal Constitution, “the spirit is there.”

On March 16, Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia suspended Gobind from his “duties as a Member of Parliament for 12 months” for alleging that then Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak was involved in a murder case and for being in contempt of the House.

The suspension came after the Dewan voted for a motion against the DAP member.

Subsequently, on April 24, Gobind filed a writ of summons against the Dewan Rakyat Speaker, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, the Dewan Rakyat secretary and the Government.

Karpal also argued that the recent Federal Court ruling in the case of Datuk Dr Zambry Abd Kadir & Ors v V. Sivakumar had set the precedence in which the courts were empowered to challenge the validity of a Parliament proceeding.

On April 17, the Federal Court ruled that Sivakumar, then the Perak Speaker, did not have the power to suspend Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abd Kadir and six state executive council members from the state assembly.

Karpal said that following Dr Zambry’s case, Gobind’s case was justiciable and that the “court was empowered to ascertain whether a particular power that had been claimed had in fact been provided for.”

Azizah, however, argued that unlike the case with Dr Zambry, Gobind’s suspension was a proceeding within the four walls of the House, and was therefore non-justiciable.

Karpal also questioned the validity of Gobind’s suspension, saying that under the Parliament’s Standing Orders, an MP could only be suspended from attending Parliament sittings, and not “from his duties as an MP.”