Counsel: Not proper for DAP lawyers to politicise Asfia’s Notice of Appeal

KUCHING: Shankar Ram, the lawyer for State Legislative Assembly ( DUN) Speaker Datuk Amar Mohd Asfia Awang Nasar, says it is not proper for DAP lawyers to politicise Asfia’s Notice of Appeal naming the DUN, Election Commission ( EC) and Second Finance Minister Dato Sri Wong Soon Koh as respondents in the case against Pujut assemblyman Dr Ting Tiong Choon.

He was responding to recent actions made by DAP state chairman and Kota Sentosa assemblyman Chong Chieng Jen for making an issue out of it and Padungan rep Wong King Wei when he said that naming Soon Koh, DUN and EC as respondents in the notice ‘strange’.

Shankar also claimed as subjudice making press statements on matters which ought to be adjudicated by the Court of Appeal since his client (Asfia) has lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal on June 19, 2017.

“No one should politicise the matter at this stage,” he clarified yesterday.

“All I can say in response to your query is that it is not right for the DAP lawyers to make press statements concerning how we or our client should conduct ours or his appeal and who we should cite as co-respondents are matters of our client’s rights in accordance with the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994.

“Our client’s appeal is stated clearly in the body (not the heading) of the Notice of Appeal that the Speaker appeals against the whole or entire decision of the High Court made on June 17, 2017 in allowing Dr Ting’s Originating Summons and dismissing our client’s applications, among others, to set aside the Originating Summons.It is necessary under Rule 6 of Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 that: ‘Notice of Appeal shall be served on all parties directly affected by the appeal or their solicitors respectively within the time limited for filing of the notice of appeal’. It shall not be necessary to serve parties not so affected. It is up to the Court of Appeal to ask any of these concerned parties questions and they are at liberty to appear and give answers.

“Please see pages 252 to 253 of Civil Appeals by Nasser Hamid. It would be fatal if we did not cite the second to fourth respondents in the Appeal, who are really necessary and interested parties not hostile to our client’s interest and right. They were before the High Court and the decision of the Court of Appeal will affect them directly and/or indirectly.

“As the matter is now in the Court of Appeal, it is for the Court of Appeal to adjudicate on the issues. In the meantime, our client reserves all his rights,” he said.

At 3.30pm Monday (June 19) Asfia, through Shankar, filed an appeal against the High Court’s decision to reinstate Dr Ting as Pujut assemblyman at the Court Registry.

Wong, who is Minister of International Trade and ECommerce said he would be filing a separate notice of appeal but the timing would depend on the State Attorney-General chambers.

As of yesterday, there was no indication when the DUN and EC would file theirs. The state government was not a respondent in Dr Ting’s lawsuit.

On June 17, High Court Judge Datuk Douglas Primus Sikayun ruled against the decision of DUN and thus restored Dr Ting as Pujut assemblyman.

When delivering his judgement, he said the DUN was not a competent forum to disqualify any of its members but only the Election Court could decide on the membership status of any assemblyman as provided for under Article 118 of the Federal Constitution.

Douglas also found that Asfia had failed to apply the rule of natural justice when dismissing Dr Ting during the May 12 DUN sitting apart from failing to provide him ample time to prepare his defence before a motion to disqualify him was tabled. The High Court also said that Asfia failed to take into account voters’ opinion.

Wong had tabled the motion to disqualify him for allegedly acquiring an Australian citizenship in 2010. The EC previously announced a byelection for Pujut on July 4, but cancelled it following the court’s decision on June 17.

Dr Ting was disqualified in a 7010 vote in favour of the ministerial motion in the DUN on May 12 for having once acquired Australian citizenship though he had subsequently renounced it.

The bone of contention on the government’s part is that Dr Ting carried dual citizenship but the opposition claimed that Dr Ting had renounced his Australian citizenship on April 4, 2016 just before nomination day for the May 7 state election and was therefore eligible to contest.