High Court throws out Pandikar's bid to block Tawfik Ismail's suit against Act 355

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 22 — The High Court today threw out Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia's bid to strike out Mohamed Tawfik Ismail's lawsuit for allowing the controversial Act 355 amendment to the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act to be tabled.

Tawfik’s lawyer, Rosli Dahlan said that Justice Datuk Kamaludin Md Said has taken the position that the Parliamentary Speaker is answerable to court with respect to areas of law and constitutionality.

“This is a good judgement because if you remember last Monday, a similar point was taken that the Parliamentary (Speaker) ought to answer to court but the court took position that in relations to the 1MDB being questioned in Parliament was an internal proceeding matter.

“Here we say that it is an issue of Constitution, before Hadi’s Act 355 can be tabled, it must require the consent of the rulers. So the applicant Tawfik is saying that we must respect the Constitution and follow the process.

“Article 38 of the Constitution says matters of this nature (Islamic matters) must be referred to the Council of Rulers,” said Rosli.

Act 355 is a private members Bill tabled by PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang seeking to amend sections of the Shariah Court’s criminal proceedings and to implement hudud.

In his originating summons, Tawfik argued that Pandikar had violated the law when he allowed Abdul Hadi’s Bill to be tabled after conceding that the Bill was never referred to the Council of Rulers.

As the bill did not meet the requirements, it was deemed an illegal motion.

Kamaludin also gave leeway to Pandikar and time to allow the latter to file his affidavits even though Rosli pointed out that period to file pleadings had closed since the matter was brought to court some time in March last year.

“We have filed affidavits and he (Pandikar) has chosen not to reply.

“That was the position he took that he does not have to reply because he has (Article) 62 and 63 (Federal Constitution — Parliamentary privileges). So today, the judge says give him time to reply because there are a lot of allegations made,” said Rosli.