Appeals court should decide jurisdiction over NS undangs, says lawyer

Appeals court should decide jurisdiction over NS undangs, says lawyer

4 hours ago

V Anbalagan

Awang Armadajaya Awang Mahmud says the key question is whether the High Court or Special Court has the power to hear matters involving the four chieftains.

Six individuals accused of breaching an interim injunction issued by the High Court on June 5 are seeking a stay of committal proceedings in the Court of Appeal.

PETALING JAYA:

A lawyer has called on the Court of Appeal to determine whether the High Court or the Special Court has jurisdiction over matters involving the four undangs, or ruling chieftains, in Negeri Sembilan.

Awang Armadajaya Awang Mahmud said Article 160 of the Federal Constitution defines a ruler in relation to Negeri Sembilan as including the ruling chiefs.

He said Article 182 provides for civil and criminal matters involving a ruler to be heard before the Special Court.

“Article 183 further states that no action is to be instituted against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or a ruler except with the personal consent of the attorney-general,” he said.

Awang Armadajaya made his submission before a three-member Court of Appeal bench comprising Justices Alwi Abdul Wahab, Shahnaz Sulaiman and Amarjeet Singh.

He represents six individuals accused of breaching an interim injunction issued by the High Court on June 5, who are seeking a stay of committal proceedings.

They are former Sungai Ujong undang Mubarak Dohak; Jelebu undang Maarof Mat Rashad; Johol undang Muhammed Abdullah; Rembau undang Abdul Rahim Yasin; Tunku Besar of Tampin Tunku Syed Razman Tunku Syed Idrus Al-Qadri; and Shahbandar of Sungai Ujong Badarudin Abdul Khalid.

“There are important legal issues, especially whether the civil court (High Court) or the Special Court has jurisdiction to hear injunction and committal proceedings,” Awang Armadajaya said.

He said the appeal against the injunction should be fully heard by the Court of Appeal, and the Seremban High Court should meanwhile be prevented from making any decision on the committal proceedings.

Advertisement

Advertisement

However, lawyer Steven Thiru, who appeared for the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang Negeri Sembilan (DKU) and its secretary Raja Norazli Raja Nordin, said case law had established that the term “ruler” in Negeri Sembilan excluded the undangs.

“They are not sovereign and enjoy no immunity,” he said.

Awang Armadajaya countered that the cases Steven relied on were decided before the Federal Constitution was amended in 1994 to establish the Special Court.

“There are exceptional circumstances to grant the stay pending the disposal of the injunction appeal filed by the six before the Court of Appeal,” he said.

The bench reserved its decision on whether to stay the High Court proceedings.

On July 8, the six appealed against High Court judge Roz Mawar Rozain’s decision that there was a prima facie case against them, which ordered them to answer the committal application.

The dispute began on May 5 when Mubarak and the five others filed an originating summons seeking a copy of the minutes of a special DKU meeting held on April 17. The minutes contained a decision to remove Mubarak as the Sungai Ujong undang.

On June 5, the High Court granted an interim injunction to maintain the status quo, including the existing composition of the DKU and Raja Norazli’s position as secretary, pending the determination of issues relating to jurisdiction and justiciability.

Raja Norazli later claimed media reports showed that the plaintiffs, particularly Maarof, were involved in the purported appointment of the Yang Dipertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan under Article 11 of the Laws of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959, despite the injunction remaining in force.

The DKU and Raja Norazli subsequently obtained leave to commence committal proceedings against the six, alleging that the appointment process breached the court order.