Putra Jaya: The Federal Court Monday gave the green light to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (pic) to challenge the constitutionality of his sacking from Cabinet posts, almost 10 years ago, by former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
A three-man panel led by Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Richard Malanjum unanimously granted leave to Anwar to appeal to the Federal Court against a High Court's ruling that his dismissal as Deputy PM and Finance Minister was lawfully executed by Dr Mahathir.
Following this outcome, the Federal Court will determine two questions of law - whether Anwar's sacking was unconstitutional or not, and whether Dr Mahathir could sack his deputy, without first advising the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
The court will decide first, whether the provisions of Article 43(5) of the Federal Constitution specifically requires the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to be the authority which revokes the appointment of Anwar as DPM and Finance Minister in the Malaysian Cabinet, having regard to the principle that it is only the authority which appoints has the right to revoke any appointment made by it;
And secondly, whether the deletion of the name of Anwar from the post of DPM and Finance Minister, and its substitiution thereof, with the name of the first respondent (Dr Mahathir) as the Minister of Finance, could in any way cure the complete absence of the first respondent (Dr Mahathir) with the explicit of the said article.
The court has yet to fix the date to hear Anwar's final appeal. Anwar was ordered by the court to file the record of appeal within 14 days.
Presiding together with Malanjum were Federal Court judges Datuk Nik Hashim Nik Ab Rahman and Datuk Abdul Aziz Mohamad.
On Dec. 23, 1998, the High Court dismissed Anwar's suit against Dr Mahathir and the Government, to summarily strike out his application for an order to declare Dr Mahathir's decision to dismiss him from the cabinet posts on Sept 2, 1998 was unlawful and null and void.
Anwar contended that the revocation of his appointment must be effected by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, acting on the PM's advice and that it (revocation) cannot be effected by the PM, without prior assent of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
Anwar also failed to reverse the High Court's decision after the Court of Appeal, on April 25 2007, rejected his appeal and affirmed the High Court's decision.
The Court of Appeal had held that Anwar's sacking from the cabinet posts was lawfully executed by Dr Mahathir since the power to appoint and dismiss ministers lay with the prime minister.
Anwar was represented by lawyers Karpal Singh, Ram Karpal Singh, S. N. Nair and Nicholas Netto. Anwar was not present in court.
Earlier, Karpal submitted that Dr Mahathir was the person who decided to remove Anwar from the Cabinet posts and relieved him with effect from 5.30pm on Sept 2, 1998, without any indication stating that the Agong had been advised by him before he (Dr Mahathir) prepared and served the dismissal letter to Anwar.
Karpal argued that Anwar, who is the applicant in the appeal, agreed not to seek reinstatement of his position as DPM and Finance Minister as the matter was academic.
Instead, Anwar wants the court to award him damages.
Senior Federal Counsel Azizah Nawawi, representing Dr Mahathir and the Government, objected to the leave application saying that the matter had become academic.
DAILY EXPRESS NEWS
Sabah
17/06/08
1 comment:
There is a difference between UMNO and Barisan Nasional. I want to make it clear that it is not the Barisan Nasional (BN) government, but the UMNO government. It is not the government, but UMNO. Barisan Nasional is a coalition of unequals, not equals. UMNO is the big brother in BN. Therefore UMNO must be held responsible; and more importantly, UMNO must not be allowed to hide behind the BN banner. UMNO is the enemy, not BN.
I have come to the conclusion that the easy solution is to completely defeat UMNO in the next elections.
In the 2004 elections (11th General Election), the voters gave good support to Mr.Abdullah Badawi. But reforms did not come. Why? Probably because UMNO had done well in the elections. If UMNO had done well in the elections, then the election results tell UMNO that the voters are satisfied with the status quo. If the voters are satisfied with UMNO, then no reforms are necessary. In the 2008 elections (12th General Elections), UMNO did not do well, but she managed to win. UMNO did lose the 2/3 majority in the Parliament, but she did win, nevertheless. Will UMNO undertake reforms now? I would not be surprised if she did not. Why should she? UMNO is still the winner in the elections; and she can plan to rise and may even succeed to rise again. So, as long as she wins, she will never undertake the reforms. So, how do the voters get the reforms that they need? The voters will get the reforms when UMNO is completely defeated in the 13th General Elections. If UMNO wins zero seats in the next elections (13th General Elections), then some other party would have to rule Malaysia. Let us call it Party B. If UMNO is completely defeated in the next elections (13th General Elections), then Party B would rule Malaysia. Would Party B undertake reforms? If Party B does not undertake reforms, then voters would know what to do.
So, the next step for Malaysians is to completely defeat UMNO in the next elections.
Post a Comment