Upholding the rule of law

The Sarawak state legislative assembly building

IT'S been a fraught few weeks in Sarawak politics, especially where state rights are concerned.

The dust hadn't even settled on Parliament's failure to amend Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution on the status of Sabah and Sarawak as equal partners in Malaysia when a new grievance arose over the location of the Sabah and Sarawak High Court's Registry.

A circular from the Federal Court's Chief Registrar dated April 19, stating that the Registry would be moved from Kuching to Kota Kinabalu effective May 1, sparked an uproar when it was leaked online last weekend.

For once, Sarawak lawyers and lawmakers from both sides of the political divide found themselves on the same page.

Their complaint was about the manner in which the proposed relocation was done, namely without consulting the Chief Minister of Sarawak as constitutionally required by Article 121(4).

Article 121(4) of the Federal Constitution provides that in determining the location of the principal registry of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall act on the advice of the Prime Minister, who shall consult with the chief ministers of both states and the Chief Judge of the High Court.

In a statement on Monday (April 22), the Chief Minister's Office confirmed that there was no consultation by the Prime Minister with the Sarawak Chief Minister on the move.

"The Sarawak government strongly objects to this non-compliance with the rule of law and views this relocation as unconstitutional," it said.

Sarawak Pakatan Harapan was in agreement with the state government that the planned move was unconstitutional as the Chief Minister was not consulted, its chairman Chong Chieng Jen said.

And SUPP's Piasau assemblyman Datuk Sebastian Ting said he would take the federal government to court over the decision to relocate the Registry without consulting the Chief Minister.

On Tuesday (April 23), another letter from the Chief Registrar stated that the planned relocation would not be implemented on May 1.

No reason was given for this decision, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume it had something to do with the strong protests from Sarawak.

Welcoming the decision, the Advocates Association of Sarawak said the rule of law had prevailed and that implementing the relocation without consulting the Chief Minister would have set a bad precedent.

It's quite clear in this matter that constitutional requirements were not complied with and the federal government did the right thing not to proceed with the planned relocation.

However, the episode doesn't reflect particularly well on the federal government, coming as it did at a time when the Prime Minister reiterated that Pakatan was committed to the rule of law and the Federal Constitution.

More care needs to be taken with how decisions like this are made and implemented, especially if they involve Sarawak's constitutional rights.

With longstanding grievances over the erosion of state rights coming to the fore in Sarawak, it is imperative for Pakatan to be extra mindful of constitutional requirements so as not to further aggrieve Sarawakians and to truly demonstrate that their decisions are made in accordance with the rule of law and the Constitution.

An explanation or acknowledgement of why the Registry will not be relocated after all would not go amiss either and would help to soothe sore feelings among Sarawakians.- Star

✍ Sumber Pautan : ☕ Malaysians Must Know the TRUTH

Kredit kepada pemilik laman asal dan sekira berminat untuk meneruskan bacaan sila klik link atau copy paste ke web server : http://bit.ly/2DCypQ3

(✿◠‿◠)✌ Mukah Pages : Pautan Viral Media Sensasi Tanpa Henti. Memuat-naik beraneka jenis artikel menarik setiap detik tanpa henti dari pelbagai sumber. Selamat membaca dan jangan lupa untuk 👍 Like & 💕 Share di media sosial anda!