Charges of "abuse of process" were made by both sides today in the
appeal by the Attorney-General's Chambers against leave granted by the High
Court to Sungai Siput MP Dr D Jeyakumar in his landmark application for a
judicial review of the allocation of special federal funds to elected
representatives.
Senior federal counsel Suzanna Attan reiterated the AG's stand that the application was an "abuse of process" by Jeyakumar as the special federal funds were available to all who applied, including NGOs and MPs from all constituencies, and not exclusively for BN representatives as claimed.
Her colleague, S Narkurnavathy, said the figures on and recipients of special federal allocations were already provided in parliamentary answers and were available on government websites, making the prayer in the judicial review application for transparency moot.
Suzanna also argued that the High Court had erred in granting leave as the disbursements of special federal funds were a "management prerogative" and involved "policy decisions" that required thorough knowledge of the situation of each case.
As such, she argued before the Court of Appeal today, that "the court is not the proper forum" to review or decide on the matter.
Senior federal counsel Suzanna Attan reiterated the AG's stand that the application was an "abuse of process" by Jeyakumar as the special federal funds were available to all who applied, including NGOs and MPs from all constituencies, and not exclusively for BN representatives as claimed.
Her colleague, S Narkurnavathy, said the figures on and recipients of special federal allocations were already provided in parliamentary answers and were available on government websites, making the prayer in the judicial review application for transparency moot.
Suzanna also argued that the High Court had erred in granting leave as the disbursements of special federal funds were a "management prerogative" and involved "policy decisions" that required thorough knowledge of the situation of each case.
As such, she argued before the Court of Appeal today, that "the court is not the proper forum" to review or decide on the matter.
MP's locus standi also
questioned
She also questioned Jeyakumar's locus standi in applying leave for judicial review, saying he was not adversely affected by the alleged action of the federal agency in charge of federal fund disbursements.
The AG is appealing an earlier High Court ruling granting Jeyakumar leave for a judicial review of the process by which federal funds are allocated to MPs.
S Ambiga, who appeared for Jeyakumar, countered the position taken by the federal counsel with "abuse of process" arguments of her own.
She said the AG's appeal against the leave for judicial review in the matter was in fact an abuse of process in itself, since the AG's role in cases involving public interest, such as this, should be as defence attorney for the respondent but as a guardian of public interest.
In this case, Ambiga said, the appeal by the AG went against public interest, vis-a-vis the need for accountability and transparency in the governance and management of public funds.
"I don't understand why they are trying to shut us out when we are asking for transparency."
The AG's arguments on the basis of merits at such an early stage, she said, seemed as if the office was acting on the respondent's side and not in the public interest, since the threshold for granting leave was lower and did not require the court, at this juncture, to look into the merits.
She also countered the AG's claims that the matter of special federal funding was a policy decision outside the purview of the courts by referring to the judgment granting leave to Jeyakumar.
The judge, Anbiga pointed out, ruled that while the government may claim "management prerogative" and "policy decision', the claims alone were "insufficient" as it had yet to show the court that this was so.
Therefore, without evidence or any finding by the court that the disbursements of special federal funds are outside judicial purview, then the matter, as rightly ruled by the High Court, still needed to be reviewed, decided and ruled on.
She also said that the figures given in government websites and parliamentary answers were inaccurate and did not constitute a full disclosure.
The appeal is being heard before a three-member bench of the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya, led by Justice Low Hop Bing, who is sitting with Justice Abdul Wahab Patail and Justice K Anantham.
After hearing both sides of the argument, Justice Low adjourned the matter to a date to be fixed later.
"In view of the importance of the case, the court wil take time to deliberate," he said.
Allocations of special federal funds to MPs have for long been the subject of brickbats between the BN-led federal government and the opposition parties.
The opposition has been claiming that the BN victimises opposition MPs by depriving them the allocations - just as Pakatan Rakyat is accused of withholding allocations to BN representatives in the states it controls.
Heated discussions on this matter have led to fiery state assembly and parliamentary debates and media battles.
This landmark case is the first legal challenge on the matter.
She also questioned Jeyakumar's locus standi in applying leave for judicial review, saying he was not adversely affected by the alleged action of the federal agency in charge of federal fund disbursements.
The AG is appealing an earlier High Court ruling granting Jeyakumar leave for a judicial review of the process by which federal funds are allocated to MPs.
S Ambiga, who appeared for Jeyakumar, countered the position taken by the federal counsel with "abuse of process" arguments of her own.
She said the AG's appeal against the leave for judicial review in the matter was in fact an abuse of process in itself, since the AG's role in cases involving public interest, such as this, should be as defence attorney for the respondent but as a guardian of public interest.
In this case, Ambiga said, the appeal by the AG went against public interest, vis-a-vis the need for accountability and transparency in the governance and management of public funds.
"I don't understand why they are trying to shut us out when we are asking for transparency."
The AG's arguments on the basis of merits at such an early stage, she said, seemed as if the office was acting on the respondent's side and not in the public interest, since the threshold for granting leave was lower and did not require the court, at this juncture, to look into the merits.
She also countered the AG's claims that the matter of special federal funding was a policy decision outside the purview of the courts by referring to the judgment granting leave to Jeyakumar.
The judge, Anbiga pointed out, ruled that while the government may claim "management prerogative" and "policy decision', the claims alone were "insufficient" as it had yet to show the court that this was so.
Therefore, without evidence or any finding by the court that the disbursements of special federal funds are outside judicial purview, then the matter, as rightly ruled by the High Court, still needed to be reviewed, decided and ruled on.
She also said that the figures given in government websites and parliamentary answers were inaccurate and did not constitute a full disclosure.
The appeal is being heard before a three-member bench of the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya, led by Justice Low Hop Bing, who is sitting with Justice Abdul Wahab Patail and Justice K Anantham.
After hearing both sides of the argument, Justice Low adjourned the matter to a date to be fixed later.
"In view of the importance of the case, the court wil take time to deliberate," he said.
Allocations of special federal funds to MPs have for long been the subject of brickbats between the BN-led federal government and the opposition parties.
The opposition has been claiming that the BN victimises opposition MPs by depriving them the allocations - just as Pakatan Rakyat is accused of withholding allocations to BN representatives in the states it controls.
Heated discussions on this matter have led to fiery state assembly and parliamentary debates and media battles.
This landmark case is the first legal challenge on the matter.
Source : http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/176437
No comments:
Post a Comment