‘Federal Court’s decision gives definitive interpretation not defined by IGC’

KUCHING: The Federal Court has provided definitive interpretation on the term ‘Judge with Bornean judicial experience’ through its decision in the Keruntum case yesterday, which the Inter- Governmental Committee ( IGC) never defined or explained in its report.

In stating this, state legal counsel Dato Sri JC Fong said now that the judicial interpretation is given, the people can fully understand the nature of the recommendation in paragraph 26(4) of the IGC report.

“The Federal Court judgment proves that the issue raised by parties including the state government, was never about whether the Malaysia Agreement 1963 ( MA63) and IGC Report had the force of law in Malaysia.

“The Federal Court and parties proceeded on the basis these two constitutional documents are valid but the term ‘ Bornean judicial experience’ needed to be interpreted to see if there was a failure to comply with paragraph 26(4) of IGC report.

“Guidance has been given by the Federal Court as to the legal implication on a person’s constitutional rights, if any, where an IGC recommendation is not implemented under Article VIII of MA 63,” Fong told The Borneo Post yesterday.

As to whether paragraph 26(4) of IGC should have been implemented, Fong said this must depend on Parliament or the federal and state governments and the desire of the public, especially lawyers and politicians.

“On this issue, (state Democratic Action Party chairman) YB Chong Chieng Jen did not show any desire to follow the IGC recommendation even in his case. When his ( Chong) own appeal against the state government on his libel case came up for hearing in May 2017, the Federal Court comprised five Peninsular Malaysian judges.

“He did not complain that there was no judge from the Borneo states or whether they had Bornean judicial experience. Why is he talking about the state’s stand regarding an allpeninsular Malaysian panel of judges hearing Keruntum’s appeal? I leave the public to judge if this is not political hypocrisy.”

Fong said as rightly pointed out by the Federal Court under Article VIII of MA63, Parliament can take legislative action to implement paragraph 26(4) of IGC.

“Chong has been in Parliament for many years. I wonder why there was no move by him to have Parliament implement this recommendation and expand the definition of ‘Judge with Bornean judicial experience’ to mean only a judge born or resident in the Borneo states with this unique judicial experience. This can be done by amending Section 72 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964.”

Fong noted that Chong had not responded to a letter sent to him ( Chong) on Monday with Fong’s written submission in the Keruntum case.

“My submission is only 20 odd pages. It should not take too long for him to find whether it contains the words ‘ MA63 and IGC have no legal force in Malaysia’. If he cannot find such words by next Monday I have to sue him for libel.”

Meanwhile, Fong said he is already consulting lawyers who are experts in libel laws, incurring high legal costs for which he has to seek reimbursement from Chong.