Final victory: Settlers get RM11 mil from Felda

After more than 10 years, 354 Felda Kemahang 3 settlers received some Hari Raya cheer today after the Federal Land Development Authority (Felda) was ordered to pay RM11 million for cheating them over the grade of their oil palm fruit.

This follows the Federal Court's decision today in refusing a review of Felda's application to challenge a similar Federal Court decision by another panel which before this dismissed Felda's appeal.

More than 150 settlers were present before a packed courtroom to hear the court's final decision. Hundreds more were waiting outside after they braved a nine-hour trip from Kelantan.

With today's decision, the settlers are expected to receive between RM25,000 and RM30,000 each.

This was the first suit filed by the settlers against the federal agency.

Today's decision has serious repercussions for Felda and the government as it may open the floodgates to further suits. Felda is regarded as a backbone of the Malays and bumiputera community and a 'safe deposit' for BN.

It will also undermine the confidence of the 100,000 settlers in Felda which was formed by second prime minister Abdul Razak Hussein - the father of current PM Najib - to protect their interests and welfare.

This was highlighted by Felda counsel Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin, who referred to a string of suits faced by the federal authority from its settlers. There are other similar suits filed at the Johor Baru High Court and Seremban High Court.

Court of Appeal president Alauddin Mohd Sheriff led a three-member panel in hearing today's application.

Justice Alauddin said that in a unanimous decision, the court did not have jurisdiction to review the earlier decision of the Federal Court.

"Hence, this application is dismissed."

The other judges are justices Hashim Yusof and Md Raus Sharif.

Alauddin also ordered the appellants to pay RM20,000 legal costs.

The irony of today's victory comes courtesy of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, who failed in his review application at the Federal Court to get documents for his sodomy case on Feb 25. This came about when the judges ruled that the inherent power of the court to review its own decision is limited and strictly confined to procedural matters.

This decision bars the apex court from holding a review of another panel's decision. This binds the court and future cases.

CJ Zaki rules in favour of Felda settlers

On Feb 10, a three-member bench of the apex court led by Alauddin granted a stay order after another panel led by Chief Justice Zaki Azmi dismissed Felda's leave application.

The Zaki panel had on Jan 19 unanimously ordered Felda to pay RM11 million to the 354 settlers in Felda Kemahang 3.

In dismissing Felda's leave application, Zaki said the court was satisfied there was no part in law for the matter to be reviewed by this court.

"Following this, we uphold the findings of the High Court and the Court of Appeal and order Felda to pay the amount owed," Zaki had said.

The settlers named Felda, its area manager Ibrahim Ismail (since deceased) and Felda Palm Industries Sdn Bhd as defendants.

They were represented by lawyers Wan Rohimi Wan Daud and Yusfarizal Yusoff.

Foong: Felda cheated settlers

Gopal Sri Ram, who was a member of Zaki panel, in his judgment - the last before his retirement - said the High Court judge had correctly used his discretion to proceed with the trial without the presence of Felda's lawyers and subsequently accepted the evidence of the settlers' witnesses and awarded the damages to the settlers.

"There is material placed before us that shows that the applicants' (Felda) solicitors were aware of the hearing date. In fact, solicitors for the respondents (settlers) took the unusual but cautious step of writing to the applicants' solicitors reminding them of the trial date.

"Despite this, neither counsel nor solicitors for the applicants were present."

On Jan 13, 2008, Kota Baru High Court judge Mohd Azman Husin ordered Felda to pay RM7.8 million plus interest after counsel representing Felda and Felda Palm Industries failed to turn up for the hearing.

On June 26 last year, the appellate court delivered a two-to-one verdict in favour of the settlers, when then justice James Foong noted that Felda, which was supposed to uplift the standard of living of the settlers, had instead cheated them.

Throughout today's proccedings, Alauddin said the panel felt uncomfortable in light of the decision made in Anwar's case over the power of review.

However, Firoz Hussein in submitting today said the decision was reviewable as the apex court's decision was not final. He said it would prejudice his clients as there would be injustice.

“There are various case laws previously that say a review can be made under Rule 137 of the Federal Court rules.”

“Furthermore, by not allowing a full trial to reconvene it would prejudice my clients as the area manager who has since died would not be allowed to clear his name and similarly with Felda. Furthermore, this would undermine Felda which is also the prime minister's initiative.”

Alauddin said we do not care it was, but your client had been given ample opportunity to come to court but they did not appear.

'Where is finality on this issue?'

Justice Hashim also commented where is the finality on this issue if it were to allow this review.

“If we allow this review, what will stop the lawyers for the Felda settlers to come before another panel to challenge our findings. There would not be an end to this if we allow your application,” he said

Counsel for the settlers, Wan Rohimi Wan Daud, submitted there must be uniformity in judicial policy and if in Anwar's sodomy case there was no power for review, then the decision by an earlier panel should stand.

Outside court, settler Othman Hamat (left), who is the chairperson of the action committee said it had been a long wait, as 50 applicants had since passed away. Their families will receive the damages.

“We have travelled a long way to seek justice as we got to know that our fruits were of a better grade and not what had been paid to us. That is why we made this application,” he said, adding this was their third time in Putrajaya.

Wan Rohimi said this was the first suit instituted against Felda by the settlers and he had particpated in another filing in Johor Bahru of a RM71.8 million suit involving more than 400 settlers in Labis.

He said he understood that after Hari Raya some Felda settlers in Pahang will be filing similar suits against Felda, but he was not acting for them

Firoz Hussein said Felda would not apply for a review of today's decision.


Quality of oil palm fruits understated

The Kemahang 3 settlers had sued Felda in 2002 claiming that the agency had understated the quality of their oil palm fruits during the period from 1996 to 2002 which caused them to suffer losses.

Felda area manager Ibrahim Ismail was alleged to have cheated the settlers on the grade of their palm oil fruit - they were paid a lower grade (17.05 percent of the extraction rate), whereas the settlers found it was of a higher grade (23 percent) after they did their own testing.

In the suit, they claimed an average rate of 19.5 percent in the extraction rate.

Before filing the suit, International Trade and Industry Ministry Mustapa Mohamed had threatened the settlers with eviction.

The matter was heard at the Kota Baru High Court but one of the Felda counsel was not present, resulting in the judge making the decision to award the settlers.

Original Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/141136

Federal Court; Elegant Advisory can't sue UMNO

Umno does not deal with middlemen for its supply of election paraphernalia, its lawyer Mohd Hafarizam Harun told the Federal Court today.

He was submitting today against a leave application by Elegant Advisory Sdn Bhd to reinstate its RM218 million suit against Umno, filed in 2008.

“We (Umno) do not deal with middlemen. We deal directly with sub-contractors who print and supply election paraphernalia,” he said.

Hafarizam (left) was referring to the party's out-of-court settlement with four sub-contractors that had filed a suit against Umno over non-payment for election paraphernalia in 2006.

The lawyer said that, if Elegant Advisory is seeking payment, it should have applied together with the other sub-contractors.

Lawyer Yusfarizal Yusof, representing Elegant Advisory, submitted that Umno tried to settle the matter and had held several meetings with the company to pay up, but nothing had come of this.

“This shows there is some form of contract, albeit oral, and Umno is obliged to pay,” he said.

“There is also evidence of delivery orders which was submitted to the court, showing that a deal had been made.”

Both the company and Umno have not disputed the fact that Elegant Advisory had delivered and supplied the material, he said.

Yusfarizal submitted that the company did not provide documents on the billings at the striking-out stage, as it felt that these should be tendered during a full trial.

He said that only a few documents had been provided for the High Court's consideration pending a full trial.

Yusfarizal said, in the suit filed by the four sub-contractors, it was agreed that Elegant Advisory had directed them to print, produce and deliver the campaign materials.

He submitted there was privity of contract in this case, which denotes that reasonable cause of action can be instituted against Umno.

However, the three-member bench led by Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Richard Malanjum dismissed the leave application. Sitting with him in the unanimous decision were Justices Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin and Md Raus Sharif.

Malanjum, held that no new legal issues had been produced under Section 96 of the Court of Judicature Act for the court to grant leave.

Malanjum told Yusfarizal that his client should have supplied all its documentary evidence. He also advised the company to ensure that it signs a written contract in future dealings.

Company may seek review

Elegant Advisory chief executive officer Samsuddin Ibrahim said the company will consider seeking a review of the decision, as he feels that it has strong grounds for its application.

“I will discuss with my lawyers and depending on the Felda Kemahang's suit against Felda case tomorrow, which is also subject for a review, we will decide on the next course of action,” he told reporters outside the courtroom.

Samsuddin claimed he has evidence as to why Umno had hired a contractor (middleman) in the supply of election paraphernalia.

“Where in the world would you have sub-contractors only and not main contractors,” he asked.

Samsuddin said Elegant Advisory faces an uphill task in pursuing the suit, as the testimony could reveal that Umno and BN had violated election offences for spending more than the stipulated ceiling.

“With the out-of-court settlement with the four sub-contractors in 2006, Umno has paid more than RM8 million to them to stop the legal action. This brings to question as whether Umno had breached the Election Act by spending more than what had been stipulated,” he said.

“This (court) action will be a true revelation of what happen behind the scenes in the 2004 election campaign. Hafarizam knew all about this as he was present at most of the discussions and has also tried to arrange a settlement with us."

Samsuddin hinted that only Umno could have placed the order, given that it knows its election candidates in advance.

“I had to make all these arrangements with several sub-contractors including some in China to supply the materials within a short span of time,” he said.

“I am the only person who recognises which campaign material comes from which company, as all of it is coded by me."

Samsuddin said that, if his legal action is not right, Umno could have instituted action against him or the company for making a false claim.

This, he said, showed that a deal had been made and that "middlemen like us had been appointed" to help Umno to secure the campaign material.

It was previously reported that Elegant Advisory had begun negotiating with potential poll merchandise suppliers - some of which are the country's top printers - in late 2003 on the supposedly 'lucrative government contract'.

In its suit, the company had claimed breach of promise by Umno, in that the party had not paid for the supply of election campaign material in 2004.

It named former Umno administration and finance secretary Ishak Abdul Rahman and Umno as the defendants. The company had obtained judgment in default against Umno at the intial stage before this was set aside.

The Kuala Lumpur High Court had struck out the suit last year, saying the matter need not go for full trial. In an unprecedented move, Justice Anantham Kasinater went into the merits of the case at the preliminary stage.

On appeal at the Court of Appeal in April 28 this year, the judges upheld the decision although they recognised that the High Court judge was wrong to look into the merits so early in the case.

Elegant Advisory then applied to the apex court to reinstate the suit. Although there was no written judgement from the Court of Appeal, the Federal Court decided to hear the leave application today.

Original Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/141060

Apex court orders Felda to pay RM11 mil to settlers

Hafiz Yatim
Jan 19, 10

The Federal Court has refused to grant leave (permission) for the Federal Land Development Authority (Felda) to appeal, and ordered it to pay RM11 million for cheating 354 settlers over seven years.

Some 600 people, including family members of the Felda Kemahang 3 settlers from Tanah Merah, Kelantan, packed the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya today. They greeted the news with joy.

The three-member panel led by Chief Justice Zaki Azmi, was unanimous in refusing to grant leave for the appeal.

"The court is satisfied that there is no part of law for the matter to be reviewed by this court. We uphold the findings of the High Court and the Court of Appeal," Zaki said in his oral judgment.

Other members of the panel were Justices Gopal Sri Ram and Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin.

The 354 settlers are each expected to get between RM25,000 and RM30,000. They were represented by a team of lawyers led by Wan Rohimi Wan Daud and Yusfarizal Yusoff. Felda was represented by Cecil Abraham and Sunil Abraham.

The settlers named Felda, its area manager Ibrahim Ismail (since deceased) and Felda Palm Industries Sdn Bhd as defendants.

On Jan 13, 2008, Kota Bharu High Court judge Mohd Azman Husin had ordered Felda to pay RM7.8 million plus interest after counsel representing Felda and Felda Palm Industries failed to turn up for the hearing.

On June 26 last year, the appellate court delivered a two-to-one verdict in favour of the settlers. Federal Court judge James Foong and Court of Appeal judge Abdull Hamid Embong ruled in their favour, while Justice Abdul Malik Ishak dissented.

The settlers, led by Awang Soh Mamat, filed the suit on Sept 22, 2002, claiming that they were cheated of payment for oil palm fruit from 1996-2002.

Othman Hamat said the settlers are thankful for the apex court's decision, as their seven-year struggle to seek justice has been brought to a close.

“We have faced a lot of adversity in facing the authorities. The settlers suspected something amiss when we realised the manager and Felda had downgraded our crop to Grade C-.

“We knew the quality of our crop was at par with that of other Felda programmes. It has been a long struggle, but finally justice has been upheld. We hope to get compensation within a month,” Othman said, when contacted today.

He said some of the settlers have died and that the money will go to family members.

'Minister threatened settlers'

During the proceedings, the settlers had alleged they were threatened with eviction from the programme unless they withdrew their suit against Felda.

Court documents and testimonies from the settlers revealed the role of former agriculture and agro-based industries minister Mustapa Mohamed, who had allegedly threatened the settlers to withdraw their lawsuit. He is currently international trade and industry minister.

While the Court of Appeal in its judgment alluded to the minister's alleged role, it reserved its ire for Felda.

Justice Foong said Felda, as a statutory body set up to assist settlers in raising their standard of living, had instead cheated them.

"In a position of authority over the plaintiffs in the allotment of land in the said scheme, Felda had after the suit was filed, threatened to evict the plaintiffs from the scheme for pursuing the action,” he said.

"Such intimidation weighs against Felda. The third defendant (Felda Palm Industries Sdn Bhd) is no better since they are associated with or is part of Felda.

Given the circumstances and having taken into account all other relevant factors into consideration, we are of the view that the trial judge's award of this amount is justified.”

Wan Rohimi said justice has been a long time coming, as this is “not an isolated case involving Felda or its manager cheating settlers”.

“Since filing the action, we found many other cases. We have also acted for 400 settlers in Felda Maokil in Labis, Johor," he added.

Original Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/122261

Elegant Advisory vs Umno: Appeal filed

A company has filed an appeal against the decision of the High Court to strike out its RM218 million suit against Umno for supplying election paraphernalia during the 2004 poll.

Elegant Advisory Sdn Bhd filed the notice of appeal at the High Court registrar's office here Friday through Messrs Termizi & Co.

Lawyer Mohd Nazruddin Abdullah, when contacted, said that he was preparing the grounds for appeal and no date had been set by the Court of Appeal to hear the case.

On Sept 10, judicial commissioner Anantham Kasinater, who allowed Umno's application to strike out the company's suit, decided that the suit against Umno was unfounded and did not comply with the Contracts Act 1950.

He said that in his submission, the company's lawyer admitted that there was no written contract, and neither could he explain the gist of the contract verbally.

Elegant Advisory, which filed the civil suit on June 23, 2008 and named the Umno treasurer, Abdul Azim Mohd Zabidi and Umno, as the defendants, said that the company was appointed to supply election paraphernalia and printed materials as well as provide transportation to Umno for the 11th general election.

The company claimed that it had submitted an invoice of RM218,013,475 but Umno failed to settle the payment.

- Bernama

Original source click here: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/114260

McDonald's sued after diner gets Hepatitis A

LOS ANGELES, July 23 (Reuters) - The parents of a teenage boy who allegedly contracted hepatitis A after eating at a McDonald's Corp (MCD.N) restaurant in Milan, Illinois, have sued and are seeking damages and other relief.

The lawsuit against the fast-food giant was filed on Thursday in the Circuit Court of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit of Rock Island County, Illinois.

It claims that on July 12 -- weeks after eating at the Milan McDonald's -- 16-year-old Dillon Mrasak came down with a very high fever, aches and fatigue. The teen was hospitalized and tested positive for hepatitis A, a highly contagious liver infection.

The source of the outbreak has not been confirmed, said McDonald's spokeswoman Danya Proud, who declined to comment on pending legal matters.

Unlike hepatitis B and C, hepatitis A does not develop into potentially fatal chronic hepatitis or cirrhosis.

Hepatitis A is most often contracted from food or water contaminated with the virus -- which is present in the stool of people who are infected -- or from close contact with an infected person.

It can take two to seven weeks before symptoms appear.

Two workers who handled food at the McDonald's operated by franchisee and co-defendant Kevin Murphy are among those who have fallen ill in the outbreak that has sickened more than 20 people in Illinois and Iowa.

The Rock Island County Health Department is investigating after receiving its first report of illness on July 10.

Lawyers also are seeking class-action status for a separate lawsuit filed July 21 on behalf of individuals who may have been exposed during the outbreak.

According to press reports, a Milan McDonald's worker was hospitalized on June 16 and subsequently diagnosed with Hepatitis A. That worker, who handled food while she was infectious, said she informed her manager of the diagnosis.

Restaurant operator Murphy said he learned of the outbreak from the health department on July 13.

"When our franchisee was notified about this matter by the Rock Island County Health Department on July 13th, he took immediate action to address their concerns," McDonald's spokeswoman Proud said.

The Milan McDonald's closed its doors on July 15 and reopened on July 18.

Milan is in the Quad Cities area near the Illinois-Iowa border and is about 160 miles west of Chicago.

More than 4,500 people have been vaccinated against Hepatitis A and more than 10,000 people may have been exposed. (Reporting by Lisa Baertlein; editing by Andre Grenon)

Original Source: click here

Nizar to file appeal to apex court on Monday

Original Source: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/6/4/nation/4042348&sec=nation

IPOH: Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin will file an appeal to the apex court against the Court of Appeal’s decision to declare Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir the lawful Mentri Besar.

Nizar said he had instructed his counsel to file the papers on Monday despite not having the appeal court’s written judgment.

The Perak PAS deputy commissioner said he was made to understand that the written judgment would be released in a week.

“It has been more than a week now and it’s difficult for my lawyers to frame the constitutional questions without the grounds of judgment.

“Nevertheless, we will proceed. We do not want to wait any longer as time is short,” he told a press conference after meeting state Pakatan leaders at Wisma DAP yesterday.

Nizar said it was then up to the Federal Court to fix a date to hear the application.

On May 22, the Court of Appeal overturned a High Court decision that declared Nizar as the rightful Mentri Besar.

Nizar also said police had instructed 69 people, arrested outside the state secretariat building on May 7, to report to the district police headquarters today.

Malaysia Airlines told to pay 6.9 mln euros fine

Original Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSKLR20786120090601

KUALA LUMPUR, June 1 (Reuters) - Malaysia Airlines (MAS) (MASM.KL), Malaysia's national carrier, said on Monday a European arbitration tribunal had ordered it to pay Advanced Cargo Logistic GmbH (ACL) 6.9 million euros ($9.8 million) for breach of a cargo handling contract.

In 2004, ACL had sought to claim 62.7 million euros from MAS after the Malaysian firm breached an agreement to maintain its European cargo hub at Germany's Frankfurt-Hahn airport for 10 years from 1999.

"Due to prudent provisioning in previous years, and given that the award orders MAS to pay only about 10 percent of the sum originally claimed by ACL in 2004, the award is not expected to have a material adverse impact on the financial position of MAS," it said in a statement.

The airline said it is seeking advice to challenge the ruling.

MB vs MB: Judgment gives Nizar a boost

Original Source: http://www1.malaysiakini.com/news/101614

Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin's bid to challenge the legitimacy of Zambry Abdul Kadir's appointment as Perak menteri besar received a fresh impetus when the Kuala Lumpur High Court granted him leave and agreed that there are merits to his case.


In allowing his leave application for the hearing of his judicial review of the appointment, Justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim fixed next Wednesday for case management.

perak pac hearing 050309 nizarRuling that the facts of the case have their merits, the judge was of the view that the application was not frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process.

He said Mohd Nizar was seeking a writ of quo warranto - which is one of the remedies available to determine the legality of Zambry's appointment since the Perak legislative assembly was not dissolved and the applicant (Nizar) did not resign.

The fact is, he said, Mohd Nizar did see the Perak sultan to apply for the dissolution of the state assembly to settle the present impasse in order to hold a fresh elections.

"Regretfully, the sultan did not give his permission to dissolve the assembly and the respondent (Zambry) was appointed as the new menteri besar.

"However, the applicant did not resign as there was no vote of non-confidence against him. Article 16 (6) of the Perak constitution only states four conditions where a menteri besar can vacate his post including tendering his resignation but this was not made."

In February, Mohd Nizar and the Pakatan Rakyat government were booted out of power following a political coup by Barisan Nasional.

Next Tuesday, the ousted menteri besar will be contesting in the Bukit Gantang parliamentary by-election, which is being touted as a referendum on the Perak takeover.

Appeal may be filed

Meanwhile, Justice Abdul Aziz said both parties have agreed that there was no dispute over the non-dissolution of the legislative assembly. It was also agreed by the applicant and attorney-general that the Perak ruler has his own prerogative powers.

"The fact remains that the applicant (Mohd Nizar) is questioning whether the respondent (Zambry's) coming into power is legal or not."

"The threshold test at this stage is to convince whether there is a prima facie arguable case," he said.

Mohd Nizar was represented by senior lawyer Sulaiman Abdullah while senior Federal Counsel Kamaluddin Md Said represented the Attorney-General's Chambers. Senior lawyer Cecil Abraham and his son Sunil represented Zambry.

Following the decision, Abdul Aziz directed Sulaiman to hand over the application and documentation to Abraham on Tuesday and fixed 3.30pm the next day for case management.

Commenting on the decision, Kamaluddin said he would discuss with the AG (Abdul Gani Patail) on whether to file an appeal.

However, it is not known if they could file an appeal as the AG is not a party in the application for a judicial review. They are merely invited to assist the court to deliberate on the constitutional issue.

Mohd Nizar filed for a judicial review on Feb 13, where among others, he sought a declaration that he is the rightful Perak menteri besar.

He is also seeking an interpretation of Article 16(6) of the Perak constitution on when can the menteri besar's post be vacated.

In his application, Mohd Nizar said Zambry should cite the authority that allowed him to legitimately become the menteri besar.

He is also seeking a declaration that Zambry has no right to be menteri besar at any material time plus an injunction to prevent him or his agents from continuing his tasks and roles as menteri besar.

He is also seeking an interpretation of the Perak constitution over when can the post of menteri besar be vacated as stated under Article 16(6).

(a) The menteri besar had advised the ruler on the dissolution of the state legislative assembly;

(b) There was no dissolution of the assembly;

(c) There was no motion of non-confidence against the menteri besar in the state legislative assembly; and

(d) The menteri besar did not resign.

'Some light at the end of the tunnel'

In welcoming the decision, Sulaiman said that he was somewhat surprised there was so much objection from the AG's Chambers on the issue of leave.

"The AG had strenuously argued on the grounds that Mohd Nizar's application was frivolous and vexatious and the arguments advanced by the AG were extremely technical. It did not seem to address the issues that arose from the application.

"In fact, the reaction from the AG's Chambers appears to be one of closing the eyes altogether to the substantial issues and taking refuge in certain arguments as to the justiciability of the Sultan of Perak's decision," he said.

Sulaiman said his client has been consistent that he is in no way challenging the authority or decision and wisdom of the sultan.

"We are happy that the basic law for a judicial review has been upheld. We look forward to the substantive arguments once the hearing dates are fixed," he said.

In conclusion, Sulaiman said he was glad that the protracted court battle has seen "some light at the end of the tunnel."

Asked if today’s ruling today meant that Mohd Nizar did not commit ‘derhaka’ (treachery) against the sultan as alleged by certain quarters, Sulaiman said ‘derhaka’ means that one
goes against the ruler’s powers or his authority.

"We or Mohd Nizar are not questioning the ruler or his authority. We are merely questioning Zambry's authority to sit as the Perak MB," he said, adding that his client gave specific instructions when filing the action that it must not give the impression that he was challenging the sultan.

Federal Court returns Perak cases to High Court

Original Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/100810

The Federal Court today set aside the Court of Appeal's decision on Friday and returned the constitutional questions to determine the legitimacy of the Perak menteri besar back to the Kuala Lumpur High Court. MCPX Meanwhile, the apex court also decided to return the case of the three independent assemblypersons suit against Perak legislative assembly speaker V Sivakumar, to the Perak High Court. The Federal Court, which is the highest court in the land, made the decision before a five-member panel headed by Court of Appeal president, Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, where it decided the two cases must be heard at the High Court before coming to the Federal Court by way of appeal. Other judges were Chief Judge of Malaya Justice Arifin Zakaria, Justice S. Augustine Paul, Justice Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin and Court of Appeal judge James Foong. In their decision, the apex court judges ruled that Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Justice Lau Bee Lan and Ipoh Judicial Commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim had no power to refer the state constitutional question under Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act (CJA) to the Federal Court. Alauddin then set aside all the orders made by the Court of Appeal last Friday that included the four questions provided by the attorney-general’s chambers must be heard and decided by the Federal Court and remitted the case to the High Court, before the same judge, Lau Bee Lan. Attorney-general also present This was because the word constitution under the Act was limited to the Federal Constitution and does not cover the Perak state constitution. The apex court made the decision following a preliminary objection made by ousted Perak menteri besar Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin's lead counsel Sulaiman Abdullah. Following the decision, the Kuala Lumpur High Court is expected to hear the case either this week or next week. Similarly, the three independents’ suit against Sivakumar is expected to be brought back to Ipoh before the same judge. Today’s hearing also sees a rare occasion as this was the first time where Nizar met the BN’s Zambry Abdul Kadir at the hearing. Also present was attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail, who was there to advise on constitutional matters if needed. Earlier, Sulaiman applied that the matter be heard before a nine-member panel at the Federal Court. However, this was not allowed by Alauddin who ruled a five-member panel was sufficient. According to section 74 (1) of the CJA, every proceeding in the Federal Court shall be heard and disposed of by three Judges or such greater uneven number of judges as the chief justice may in any particular case determine. Last Friday, the Court of Appeal rejected an appeal by Nizar against the High Court order to transfer his case against Zambry to the Federal Court. Nizar had filed for judicial review High Court judge Lau had ruled on March 6 that there were constitutional issues involving the interpretation of Article 16 (6) of the Perak constitution and referred four constitutional questions to the Federal Court for determination. Following today’s decision by the apex court, the four constitutional questions formulated by the attorney-general’s chambers on March 10, were not heard as the case is remitted back to the High Court. Nizar had filed for a judicial review on Feb 13, seeking a declaration that he is the rightful menteri besar of Perak and an injunction to bar Zambry from discharging his duties as the menteri besar. In the suit, Nizar, among others, is seeking a declaration that he is the rightful Perak menteri besar. He is also seeking an interpretation of Article 16(6) of the Perak constitution on whether the menteri besar's post can be vacated when: (1) The menteri besar had advised the ruler on dissolution of the state legislative assembly; (2) There was no dissolution of the assembly; (3) There was no motion of confidence against the menteri besar in the state legislative assembly; and (4) The menteri besar did not resign. In his application, Nizar said Zambry should cite the authority that allowed him to legitimately become the menteri besar. Nizar is also seeking a declaration that Zambry has no right to be menteri besar at any material time plus an injunction to prevent him or his agents from continuing his task and role as the menteri besar. Meanwhile, the three assemblypersons - Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang), Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu (Changkat Jering) and Hee Yit Foong (Jelapang) - want the court to declare that they have not resigned and were still elected representatives. Their case arose following their defections from Pakatan Rakyat in February which resulted in Sivakumar stating that he had received their resignation letters and called for by-elections after declaring their seats vacant. However, the trio said that they had not submitted any resignation letters and claimed that Sivakumar had used their undated resignation letters. They also informed the EC that they had not resigned.

MB vs MB sent to Federal Court

Source: http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/legal/general_news/mb_vs_mb_sent_to_federal_court.html

©The Malaysian Insider by Debra Chong PUTRAJAYA, March 20 — The Court of Appeal today dismissed an appeal by Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin against the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s decision to refer the question of who is the lawful Perak menteri besar to the Federal Court. The three-member panel of judges, comprising Datuk Md Raus Sharif, Datuk Abdull Hamid Embong and Datuk Ahmad Ma’arop, unanimously ruled that High Court judge Lau Bee Lan was right to refer the state constitutional dispute to the Federal Court to decide. “We agree the word ‘constitution’ under Section 84 is not confined to the Federal Constitution but includes the state constitutions,” Md Raus announced in open court this afternoon, referring to the section of the law under the Courts of Judicature Act (CJA). “As such, the High Court was not wrong to refer the question to the Federal Court. “The appeal is therefore dismissed,” he said. Nizar’s lawyers, led by Sulaiman Abdullah, had earlier argued that Lau had misinterpreted the law under Section 84 of the CJA to mean she had the discretion to refer the constitutional conundrum to the apex court. Sulaiman contended that Section 84 provides for the judge’s discretionary power to do so only if the dispute related specifically to the Federal Constitution and not to state constitutions. But Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail countered that the definition of the word “constitution” must include a more “liberal and proper meaning” to include state constitutions. Abdul Gani, who today took over from senior federal counsel Datuk Mohamad Kamaluddin Md Said in advising the court, pointed out that the constitutions of several states, notably Sabah and Sarawak, do not have clauses that give them the right to refer state constitutional disputes all the way to the Federal Court. The Court of Appeal granted leave to Nizar’s judicial review, which had been neglected earlier at the High Court level. With that order, Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir, the de facto Perak menteri besar, is now a party to the proceedings. Neither Nizar nor Zambry were present for today’s hearing. The Federal Court, which was scheduled to hear the KL High Court’s referral this morning, will do so next Monday. Zambry’s new lead lawyer, Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin, who was present in court today, told reporters he had no problems with the four referral questions framed earlier by Lau. The four questions to be answered by the Federal Court are: 1. “Whether the withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly of Perak under Article XVI (6) read together with Article XVII (2) (b) of the Constitution of Perak by His Royal Highness the Sultan of Perak is justiciable? 2. “If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, the following question is whether the withholding of consent by His Royal Highness the Sultan of Perak is lawful. 3. “Whether the appointment of the new menteri besar under Article XVI (2) (a) read together with Article XVII (2) (a) of the Constitution of Perak by His Royal Highness the Sultan of Perak is justiciable? 4. “If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, the following question is whether the new menteri besar is validly appointed?” Firoz noted the questions will resolve the main issues at the heart of the Perak constitutional crisis, which is related to the “justiciability” of the Sultan of Perak, that is whether the court can question the Ruler’s decision to appoint a new menteri besar. But Nizar’s lawyers argued otherwise. “We are not challenging the Sultan of Perak in any way. Nobody is challenging the Sultan’s decision,” one of Nizar’s lawyers, Leong Cheok Keng, told reporters outside the courtroom. “We are just saying Nizar has not resigned, no vote of no confidence has been taken against him, how can there be a new menteri besar?” Leong said, pointing to the demands in Nizar’s original suit. In part 1(b) of the suit filed on Feb 18, Nizar asked the High Court to decide if the menteri besar’s post can be considered vacant, based on Article 16(6) of the Perak State Constitution, when: (i) The menteri besar had advised the Ruler on the dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly; (ii) There was no dissolution of the Assembly; (iii) There was no motion of no-confidence taken or passed against the menteri besar in the Assembly; (iv) The menteri besar did not resign.

Clause doesn’t cover Muslims

©The Star FREEDOM of religion as stated in Article 11 (1) of the Federal Constitution does not cover Muslims who wish to convert at any time. Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said Muslims who wish to renounce the religion would need to obtain an order or declaration from the Syariah Court, which has the jurisdiction under state Enactments of Islam. The case Lina Joy vs Federal Territory Religious Department would be the guide for anyone intending to renounce Islam, he said. “The judgment in the case states clearly that a Muslim cannot renounce the religion as he wishes. If such freedom is given to Muslims, this will affect the status of Islam as the official religion, as stated in the Federal Constitution,” he said. Replying to Zulkifli Noordin (PKR – Kulim Bandar Baru), he said Phrase 4 of Article 11 prohibited non-Muslims from spreading other religions to Muslims. At the moment, Nazri said there are 10 states in Malaysia that limit the spread of other religions to Muslims with state laws. The states are Terengganu, Kelantan, Selangor, Perak, Malacca, Kedah, Pahang, Negri Sembilan, Johor and Perlis. Nazri said a Muslim can only renounce the religion once the Syariah Court gives the order whereby the National Registration Department would delete the word “Islam” from the identity card once relevant documents are shown. He also said that the government has no intention to amend Article 11 (1) after the Federal Court decided on the Lina Joy case.

The power is vested in the Attorney-General, not the Bar Council

Contributed by Roger Tan  
Sunday, 22 February 2009  

©The Sunday Star

WITH reference to the letter by WKL of Penang in The Star, February 19 (“UUM law grads still awaiting reply from Bar Council”), I wish to clarify on behalf of the Bar Council that the power to exempt Universiti Utara Malaysia law graduates from the Certificate of Legal Practice examination is vested with the Legal Profession Qualifying Board chaired by the Attorney-General, and not the Bar Council.

On Aug 24, 2008, 10 senior legal practitioners, together with other evaluators from the Judiciary and the Attorney-General’s chambers, all appointed by the Board, visited Universiti Utara Malaysia in Sintok, Kedah, and then Multi-media University in Malacca on Sept 3, 2008, to determine if UUM and MMU law graduates should be exempt from the CLP examination.

We have already made our recommendations to the Board, and it is for the Board to decide.

ROGER TAN,
Malaysian Bar Evaluation Team head,
Kuala Lumpur.

Umno succeeds in setting aside RM218mil default judgement

(Bernama) - Umno today (21st January 2009) succeeded in its bid to set aside a judgment in default obtained by a merchandise supplier against the party in relation to the provision of RM218 million worth of election merchandise. High Court deputy registrar Ahmad Faizadh Yahaya made the order with costs in chambers after allowing Umno's application to set aside the judgment, issued on July 17 last year, ordering the party to pay Elegant Advisory Sdn Bhd RM218 million, interest and costs.

The company sought the judgment after Umno failed to respond to its suit.

Datuk Mohd Hafarizam Harun, counsel for Umno, told reporters that he would file a conditional memorandum of appearance to enable him to apply to strike out the company's writ of summons and statement of claim.

Elegant Advisory filed the civil suit in June 23 last year naming Umno treasurer Datuk Seri Abdul Azim Mohd Zabidi and the party as defendants.

Mohd Hafarizam said the deputy registrar had accepted Abdul Azim's claim, enclosed in his application to set aside the judgment in default, that the writ of summons and statement of claim were initiated without complying with Order 10 Rule 1 of the High Court Rules 1980 and Section 9 (c) of the Societies Act.

He said the documents were not personally served on the defendants, he said.

Moreover, Elegant Advisory had named the wrong party as defendant, he said, adding that it should have named the party's public officer and not the Umno treasurer.

In its writ of summons filed via Messrs Termizi & Co, the company said it was involved in supplying election merchandise, transport service and publications and had supplied Umno with the items for the 11th general election in 2004 upon the request of Abdul Azim.

It claimed that that since Abdul Azim had requested for supply in large quantities and within a short period of time, this resulted in the company appointing third parties (printing companies and other suppliers) to deliver the items on time and Abdul Azim had full knowledge of this.

The company had sent invoices for a sum of RM218,013,475 to Abdul Azim for payment and on May 22, 2004, a letter was sent to the defendant but it still failed to obtain payment, it said.

Besides the RM218 million, Elegant Advisory is also seeking 8% annual interest from the date of filing of the writ until settlement of the case.

Elegant Advisory was represented by counsel Mohd Nazruddin Abdullah. -- The Sun

Kena saman sebab pakai serban

KOTA BHARU, 19 Jan (Hrkh) - Seorang pelajar pondok sanggup memilih untuk menjalani hukuman penjara daripada membayar denda RM90 setelah disabit bersalah kerana menunggang motosikal tanpa memakai topi keledar.

Sedangkan ketika ditahan polis beliau memakai serban.

Ahmad Nasir Darus, 27 memilih menjalani hukuman penjara selepas Majistret Tengku Amalin A'Ishah Putri memutuskan dikenakan hukuman denda RM90 atau menjalani hukuman penjara dua hari.

Bagaimanapun di atas alasan memegang prinsip demi mempertahankan sunnah Rasulullah saw beliau lebih sanggup ditahan di penjara.

Keputusan itu dibuat majistret setelah meneliti keterangan pihak pendakwaan dan pembelaan serta hujahan bertulis yang dikemukakan.

Mahkamah mendapati pihak pembela gagal membuktikan keraguan yang munasabah dan tiada keterangan saksi-saksi lain yang dapat mengesahkan Ahmad Nasir seorang lebai.

Bagaimanapun pelajar pondok itu yang diwakili peguam Ahmad Rizal Effande Zainol memohon kepada mahkamah untuk menangguhkan pelaksanaan hukuman tersebut bagi membolehkan rayuan dikemukakan di Mahkamah Tinggi.

Namun mahkamah menolak permohonan peguam dan mengekalkan keputusan asal. Pendakwaan kes tersebut dikendalikan Pegawai Pendakwa, Cif Inspektor Mohd Yusri Mamat.

Ahmad Rizal ketika ditemui di luar mahkamah memberitahu beliau menyerahkan kepada anak guamnya untuk memilih sama ada ingin membayar denda atau sebaliknya.

Katanya, anak guamnya merasakan dirinya tidak bersalah kerana ia hanya mempertahankan sunah Rasulullah saw dengan memakai serban.

Oleh itu beliau akan memfailkan permohonan rayuan ke Mahkamah Tinggi dalam masa terdekat.

"Saya akan membawa kes ini ke Mahkamah Tinggi bagi dijadikan bahan akademik dan rujukan kerana terdapat kekaburan pada istilah 'lebai' dalam peruntukan undang-undang," katanya.

Perkarangan mahkamah dipenuhi hampir 100 rakan Ahmad Nasir yang datang untuk memberikan sokongan moral.

Pada 20 September dua tahun lalu Ahmad Nasir disaman di Jalan Pasir Tumboh atas kesalahan menunggang motosikal tanpa memakai topi keledar sebaliknya memakai serban.

Beliau disaman kerana melakukan kesalahan yang bertentangan dengan Kaedah 4 Motosikal (topi keledar keselamatan) 1973 dan boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 119 (2) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 (Akta 333/87) dibaca bersama dengan Seksyen 128(1) akta yang sama.

Ketika dihadapkan ke mahkamah pada 4 November 2007 beliau membuat pengakuan tidak bersalah serta mohon dibicarakan.

Lawyers from Peninsular Malaysia can appear before the Court of Appeal hearing an appeal arising from High Court Sabah and/or Sarawak

PUTRAJAYA, Fri (7th November 2008): The Court of Appeal (Dato’ Gopal Sri Ram, Datuk Wira Haji Ghazali Yusoff and Tengku Dato’ Baharuddin Shah bin Tengku Mahmud) today (7th November 2008) dismissed a preliminary objection raised by a Sarawak party that West Malaysian lawyers cannot appear before the Court of Appeal sitting in Putrajaya hearing an appeal arising from a High Court decision originating from Sarawak. The Court of Appeal gave reasons for its decision which will be released shortly. As a result of this decision, it is hoped that the right of West Malaysian lawyers to argue before the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal when the Appellate Courts sit in West Malaysia, which right has occasionally been questioned since the formation of Malaysia in 1963, will no longer be challenged.

(Click here to read the full judgement)

Taxpayers see red over RM1.8m land office blunder

by R. Nadeswaran and Terence Fernandez (The Sun)

PETALING JAYA (Aug 20, 2008): What’s in a colour? Is it mandatory that an application for a caveat on a land be signed in black and not blue? Whatever the shade, taxpayers in Selangor will be seeing red as the Klang Land Office has to pay RM1.8 million in compensation, not taking into account costs, for rejecting a caveat for among others, being marked with the wrong colour.

The civil suit by eight people against three individuals and the Land Office also revealed other startling facts:

» the land officer claiming that there was no annexure to the application while another contradicting him;
» a note on the application scribbled on a yellow piece of paper;
» claims of paying under-the-table money;
» claims that one party is able to "do things in the Land Office such as removing a caveat using his influence …"; and
» the cavalier manner in which applications for caveats are rejected.

The notes of judgment among others reveal the bureaucracy and incompetence of the Land Office personnel, besides highlighting a three-month delay which caused hardship to the rightful landowners.

Although Justice Datuk Faiza Tamby Chik made judgment on June 25, 1998 ordering the four defendants to pay damages to be assessed, it was not until Nov 7 last year that Justice Suriyadi Halim Omar awarded RM1.8 million.

In the meantime, the Land Office had applied to stay the order but on May 12, Judicial Commissioner Datuk Mariana Yahya dismissed the application.

While the Land Office was the fourth defendant, it has been ordered to pay the damages as the other respondents are deemed "persons of straw" – impossible to enforce judgment against them as they are unable to fork out the settlement.

The case involves a dispute between the children of R. Retnasamy Naina from his second wife and Retnasamy’s son from his first wife, his grandson and a purchaser of the said land (first, second and third defendants respectively).During a title search at the Klang Land Office on Oct 5, 1990, the children had discovered that the first and second defendants – R. Supia and P. Velauthan – had entered into an agreement to sell the land to third defendant Subramaniam N.S. Durai.

Having learnt of it, two children – the first and second plaintiffs R. Sandraksan and R. Balasingam – applied to register their interest on the land the same day and Subramaniam’s caveat was cancelled by assistant land officer Baharuddin Jantan.

According to the judgment, Sandraksan and Balasingam had signed the application but did not attach their birth certificates when applying for the caveat, prompting Baharuddin to reject the application, and allowing the land to be subsequently transferred to Sin Lian Tatt Hardware.

The caveat was rejected on the grounds that: "tandatangan mengkaveat menggunakan dakwat biru. Salinan sijil kelahiran tiada di lampirkan" (the applicants signed in blue ink and copies of birth certificates were not annexed).

According to court documents, Abd Rahman Ulang, an assistant land officer testified that he had witnessed and signed the applications of Sandraksan and Balasingam – Sandraksan signed in blue ink instead of the required black. However, during trial, he said he did not remember if the documents were attached.
"Usually, the documents are in order and usually I am satisfied," Abd Rahman said.

But during cross-examination, he admitted that if the required documents such as the birth certificates were not attached to the application, he would not have endorsed it.

The court also noted that the application was attached with a piece of yellow paper on which was written a caution – that the application was suspended due to the absence of the birth certificate.

With no oral evidence to this fact, Faiza said Baharuddin should have suspended the caveat instead of rejecting it outright.

"The court would not turn a blind eye to such cavalier attitude in the performance of a statutory duty," Faiza said, adding that Baharuddin had admitted that an oversight on his part caused the removal of the caveat.
The judge also said the Land Office had arbitrarily rejected the caveat when it could have notified the plaintiffs to return to the office and sign the application with black ink.

"The mere use of a blue ball pen is not such a grave error so as to warrant a caveat to be rejected outright," Faiza said, adding that furthermore, the plaintiffs signed the application before Abd Rahman.

The judge also said there was no notification of the rejection to the plaintiffs until Jan 7, 1991 – three months too late.

"If they were going to reject the caveat, they should have sent it by registered mail or AR Registered so the plaintiffs can take remedial measures," he said.

On the fifth plaintiff R. Uthrapathy who entered a caveat on Aug 1, 1995, Baharuddin said he overlooked this fact and transferred the property to Sin Lian Tatt Hardware.

Faiza also said Subramaniam, the third defendant, was not a bona fide purchaser as it could be inferred that Hock Tai Finance Corporation Bhd – Subramaniam’s finance company and intervener in the case – knew he was in no position to service a RM450,000 loan when his monthly salary was only RM1,588.

Hock Tai has since brought foreclosure proceedings against Subramaniam.The judgment in this case also draws inferences as to the sinister intentions and actions of some of the parties involved as a witness told the court that Subramaniam had said that he had to pay "under-table" money to Hock Tai Finance in order for the loan to be approved.

The witness also testified that Subramaniam could "do things in the Land Office such as removing a caveat using his influence…"

Source: http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=24897

Lawyer for developer is not a lawyer for purchaser and vice versa

Ruling 14.18 on Section 84 of the Legal Profession Act 1976, Chapter 14 of the Bar Council Rulings 2008 dated 5 December 2007

Please be informed that the Bar Council has made additional rulings on section 84 of the Legal Profession Act, 1976.

The existing Ruling 14.18 will be numbered (1) and the additional rulings are as follows:-

14.18

(2)

Where an advocate and solicitor acts for a purchaser in the purchase of a housing accommodation developed under a housing development, he shall not receive his remuneration for the transaction from the housing developer, and the developer and the purchaser shall each pay for the fees of his own advocate and solicitor.


(3)

Where an advocate and solicitor or the firm of which he is a member either as partner or employee is appointed or empanelled as a member of the developer’s panel of lawyers, he shall be deemed to be acting for the developer and he shall not act for any purchaser in respect of any lot in the same phase of the housing development.


Example:If a solicitor or his firm is appointed or empanelled as a member of the developer’s panel of lawyers for Phase 1 of a housing development project, he may not act for any purchaser in the said Phase 1. If the solicitor or his firm is no longer appointed or empanelled as a member of the developer’s panel of lawyers for any subsequent phase of the same housing development project, he may act for any purchaser in any subsequent phase of the same housing project in which he or his firm is not a member of the developer’s panel of lawyers.


(4)

When a solicitor acts for a developer and attests the signature of a purchaser who is not represented by a solicitor in the transaction, the solicitor acting for a developer shall in addition to obtaining from the purchaser a certificate signed by the purchaser pursuant to the proviso of section 84(1) of the Legal Profession Act, 1976 also inform the purchaser in writing that he is not acting for the purchaser.

The additional rulings contained in Ruling 14.18 (2), (3) and (4) shall come into force on 1st August 2008.

Kindly take note.

Egypt recognizes right of Muslim converts to return to former faith

Wednesday, 13 February 2008 01:44pm (from Malaysian Bar)

• Egypt recognizes Christian converts in historic ruling by VOA News

An Egyptian court has ruled the government must recognize the right of Christians who had converted to Islam to return to their old faith.

The Supreme Administrative Court ruled Saturday in the case of 12 former Coptic Christians. After converting to Islam, they had been prevented from returning to Christianity on the grounds that Islamic law would consider it an abandonment of the faith.

The Associated Press quotes an attorney Mamdouh Naklah for the Christians as saying the ruling is a victory for human rights and freedom of religion in Egypt.Human rights groups complained last year that converts from Islam were not allowed to change their religious affiliation on official identity cards.

Egyptian law is largely secular, but personal status issues such as marriage, divorce and conversion are governed by a person's religious community.

Egypt is predominantly Muslim but has a sizable Christian community.

Peguam boikot mahkamah, desak Pervez lantik semula hakim

(Utusan Malaysia)

ISLAMABAD 11 Feb. -

Peguam-peguam Pakistan mula memboikot mahkamah hari ini untuk memberi tekanan kepada Presiden Pervez Musharraf supaya melantik semula hakim-hakim kanan yang disingkirkannya di bawah perintah darurat diisytiharkan lebih tiga bulan lalu.

Pervez mengisytiharkan perintah darurat itu pada 3 November lalu, dengan memberi alasan keadaan keselamatan di Pakistan semakin tergugat dan juga sebagai usaha untuk memerangi kegiatan militan di negara ini.

Presiden Pakistan itu memecat hakim- hakim Mahkamah Agung Pakistan dan juga pakar-pakar undang-undang terkemuka lain yang berpandangan bebas.

Sejak itu, Ketua Hakim Mahkamah Agung, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry dan keluarganya telah diletakkan di bawah tahanan rumah di sini, dengan kawalan keselamatan ke atas mereka diperketatkan.
Beberapa orang hakim kanan yang lain turut diletakkan di bawah tahanan rumah.

Tindakan Pervez terhadap hakim-hakim Mahkamah Agung itu dibuat sebelum mahkamah berkenaan dijadualkan mempertimbangkan soal sama ada beliau layak menjadi Presiden untuk satu penggal lagi.

Mahkamah itu pada waktu itu dijangka memutuskan sebagai panglima tentera, Pervez tidak layak menyertai pemilihan Presiden yang dimenanginya pada Oktober lalu.

Kempen boikot mahkamah terbaru itu dianjurkan oleh Majlis Peguam-peguam Pakistan yang merupakan pertubuhan peguam utama di negara ini.

"Kami menuntut supaya badan kehakiman di negara ini dipulihkan kepada keadaan asalnya," kata Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Eksekutif Majlis itu, Qazi Mohammed Anwar.

Peguam-peguam Pakistan memainkan peranan utama dalam bantahan awam terhadap Pervez ketika negara ini membuat persediaan untuk memilih Parlimen baru minggu depan.

Pervez tidak menghadapi pemilihan baru tetapi beliau memerlukan majoriti yang besar di dewan perundangan baru itu bagi menyekat sebarang cubaan untuk mendakwanya.

Menurut tinjauan pendapat semalam, parti-parti pembangkang yang setia kepada Allahyarham Benazir Bhutto dan bekas Perdana Menteri Nawaz Sharif menerima sokongan padu tetapi sokongan untuk kumpulan-kumpulan yang ada hubungan dengan presiden itu semakin menurun.

- Beranikah peguam-peguam di Malaysia berbuat sedemikian?

Enakmen dipinda supaya rizab Melayu boleh dimajukan

Saturday, 09 February 2008 08:15AM
©Utusan Malaysia
(Digunakan dengan kebenaran)
Oleh Noraini Abd. Razak

KUALA LUMPUR 8 Feb. – Enakmen Rizab Melayu (ERM) akan dipinda bagi membolehkan tanah rizab Melayu di seluruh negara dipajak termasuk kepada bukan Melayu dengan tempoh maksimum 60 tahun supaya ia dapat dimajukan.

Menteri Sumber Asli dan Alam Sekitar, Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid berkata, menerusi pindaan itu, nilai tanah tersebut terutama di bandar-bandar dapat ditingkatkan selain pelbagai projek pembangunan dapat dilaksanakan.

Katanya, sebelum ini, tanah rizab Melayu terhalang daripada diurusniagakan kerana masalah pindah milik, pajakan, gadaian dan cagaran atau lien kepada bukan Melayu.

“Urus niaga sebegini yang tidak boleh didaftarkan kepada bukan Melayu sedikit sebanyak menjadi penghalang pembangunan tanah rizab Melayu.

“Ini disebabkan kuasa beli orang Melayu agak tidak setanding dengan bukan Melayu,” katanya ketika ditemui Utusan Malaysia baru-baru ini.

Beliau berkata, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur akan menjadi negeri pertama mengguna pakai peraturan baru itu apabila pindaan mengenainya diluluskan kelak.

Katanya, pindaan itu penting bagi membangunkan tanah rizab Melayu di Kuala Lumpur terutama di Kampung Baru yang kini terikat dengan pelbagai syarat termasuk tidak boleh dijual kepada bukan Melayu.

Selain itu, katanya, ia juga akan menyelesaikan masalah tanah rizab Melayu yang diambil oleh kerajaan untuk tujuan pembangunan tetapi tidak diganti.

“Dengan adanya pindaan ini, tidak akan timbul lagi masalah tanah rizab Melayu tidak diganti. Ini kerana tanah-tanah itu tidak diambil untuk dibangunkan, sebaliknya ia hanya dipajak untuk tempoh 60 tahun.

“Selepas tempoh itu, tanah tersebut akan kembali kepada pemiliknya,” katanya .

Menurut Azmi, proses pajakan tanah rizab Melayu kepada bukan Melayu akan dikawal selia oleh pihak berkuasa yang berkenaan.

Katanya, pemberian gadaian pula tertakluk kepada pihak yang telah ditentukan, seperti bank-bank berdaftar dan agensi kerajaan termasuk Kementerian Kewangan Diperbadankan.

Katanya, ia untuk meningkatkan nilai pasaran tanah tersebut.

Beliau berkata, Kawasan Pembangunan Tanah Rizab Melayu (MRLDA) juga akan diwujudkan bagi menggalakkan usaha pembangunannya secara lebih terancang oleh kerajaan negeri.

Selain membenarkan tanah rizab Melayu dipajak, inti pati utama pindaan tersebut juga akan mengemaskan takrifan Melayu supaya sesuai dengan takrifan yang diperuntukkan dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Ia juga akan mewujudkan peruntukan yang menggalakkan usaha memajukan tanah rizab Melayu tetapi pada masa yang sama mengekalkan pegangan di kalangan orang Melayu.

Beliau berkata, setiap pindaan yang dicadangkan tidak membelakangkan tujuan asal ERM, sebaliknya menjadikannya sebagai pemangkin kepada pembangunan tanah rizab Melayu.