Rais said: “There is no confusion (over the appointment). The appointment of Abdul Gani as announced before will go on. I do not think that the speaker was privy to the procedures.”
The implications of Rais statement are most astounding and far-reaching, as the nub of the issue is not whether the Speaker was “privy” to the constitutional procedures undertaken by the government in the appointment of the new attorney-general but whether Zahir was talking “rubbish” when he gave his reasons for rejecting Kok’s urgent motion of definite public importance on the constitutionality and propriety of Gani’s appointment as the new Attorney-General under Article 145(1) of the Constitution.
Article 145(1) of the Constitution reads: “The Yang di Pertuan Agong shall, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint a person who is qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court to be the Attorney-General for the Federation.”
In rejecting Kok’s motion, refusing to allow her the customary parliamentary
privilege of reading it out in Parliament, the Speaker gave her a written
rejection which reads:
“Usul di bawah P.M. 18(1)1. Usul Yang Berhormat bertarikh 23 November 2001 telah saya terima.
2. Kedudukan yang sebenar perkara ini adalah Y.Bhg. Datuk Seri Ainum meletakkan jawatannya sebagai Peguam Negara bermula pada 31.12.2001. Dalam masa itu Y.Bhg. Datuk Abdul Ghani akan membantu Datuk Seri Ainum menjalankan tugas-tugasnya sehingga 31.12.2001.
3. Y.Bhg Datuk Abdul Ghani akan dilantik mengambil alih jawatan itu pada 1.1.2002. Ini bermakna perlantikan rasmi Y.Bhg. Datuk Ghani belum lagi dibuat sehingga 1.1.2002 itu. Ini juga bermakna perletakan jawatan dan perlantikan tidak dibuat pada hari yang sama atau dalam tempoh satu hari seperti YB katakan. Proses memohon berkenan Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong untuk perlantikan Peguam Negara baru sedang dibuat mengikut Perkara 145(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan.
4. Berkenaan dengan tuduhan-tuduhan yang dibuat keatas Y.Bhg. Datuk Abdul Ghani itu adalah semata-mata tuduhan dan tidak boleh dibuat alasan untuk menimbangkan di bawah Peraturan 18.
Selain dari itu apa yang dikatakan dalam usul Yang Berhormat itu bukanlah satu perkara yang tertentu dan tidak perlu disegerakan. Oleh yang demikian saya menolak usul ini dalam kamar di bawah P.M. 18(7) dan tidak akan dikemukakan dalam Majlis Mesyuarat di bawah P.M. 18(8).”
The Speaker made two important assertions as reasons for rejecting
Kok’s motion, - firstly, that Gani has not yet been appointed the new Attorney-General
and secondly, that the Prime Minister has not yet invoked Article
145(1) of the Constitution to advise the King of the appointment of the
new Attorney-General - as “sedang dibuat” is different from “telah dibuat”.
The question is whether the Speaker made these two assertions based in information and advice from the Prime Minister’s Department, or did he simply summon them from “thin air” based on his own assumptions and beliefs!
If Rais is right that Zahir was wrong in making these two assertions as the Speaker was “not privy to the constitutional procedures” for the appointment of Gani as the new Attorney-General, then Zahir was simply talking “rubbish” in rejecting Kok’s motion, and the time has come for the five-term Speaker to step down from his office.
I call on the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad to appear
in person in Parliament on Monday to end the constitutional
muddle on the appointment of the new Attorney-General by way of a Ministerial
statement, which should be followed by a full debate by MPs, to address
issues including the following:
If Rais is right that the Speaker did not know what he was talking
about in rejecting Kok’s motion of urgent, definite public importance
on the constitutionality and propriety of Gani’s appointment as the new
Attorney-General, then the Speaker’s rejection was faulty and flawed and
should be reviewed and overturned in a substantive motion in the Dewan
Rakyat under Standing Orders 43 - and Kok allowed to move her motion once
again.
(30/11/2001)