What are you staying?
by
Art Harun
There was a man. His name was Muthu. He married Meenachi.
All those time he was feeling uneasy. He was not attracted to Meenachi. But he had to marry her because it was arranged. In fact, he wasn't attracted to any woman. Muthu felt that he was actually a woman trapped in a man's body.
So, he finally summoned enough courage and underwent a sex change. He took whatever hormones pills to make his skin smooth. Removed his penis. Implanted silicon into his chest and grow them up to a pair of C cuppers.
Then he went to Court.
And asked for a declaration that he was and is a woman. He also asked for a divorce. Meenachi objected. Some NGO, claiming to represent some rights group intervened and objected too. Some family members also objected.
After a lengthy hearing and hearing submissions from eminent and not so eminent Counsel, the Court granted a declaration that Muthu is and was at all material times a woman. Muthu was very happy. He celebrated. At last, he was free from the constraint of being labelled a man when he is in fact a woman.
Or so he thought.
His wife appealed. The NGO also joined in. His family members as well. While waiting for the appeal, his wife asked the Court of Appeal for an order staying the declaration which Muthu had earlier obtained in the High Court.
Despite the fact that there were two other sittings of the Court of Appeal that day, where a full coram of 3 Court of Appeal Judges were sitting in each of the two sittings, Meenachi's application for a stay order was heard by a SINGLE Judge. But Muthu did not say anything. Because under the law, a single Judge could hear such application.
The single Judge Court of Appeal, after hearing submissions, granted an order staying the declaration which Muthu had earlier obtained.
Muthu now has a problem.
She has been declared a woman. She behaves like a woman. Dress like one. She's got C-cup boobs. And she has no dick. When she wants to go to the loo, she would want to go to the ladies loo. In fact that is the primary reason for obtaining the declaration. She wants to be able to go to the ladies toilet without committing an offence under some municipal regulations.
But now the declaration is stayed. What does that mean?
Does it mean that Muthu is not a woman? But the Court has declared so. In law she is a woman. How? Does it mean now that Muthu cannot go to the ladies toilet? She doesn't want to go to men's toilet. What would the men say? Or do? She has boobs. Wears skirt. No dick. Some men might just smile. Some might take it the wrong way. Some might molest her in the men's toilet. How?
And does it mean now Muthu also cannot behave like a woman? Must she now wear pants and scratch the area where her balls used to be, like other men? And drink beer from the mug in one gulp? And burp loudly after that? Must she also pee while standing? When she is in Kelantan, which supermarket lane is she supposed to be in? Male or female? Muthu is confused. She really doesn't know what to do.
How is she supposed to behave now?
Muthu consults her lawyers. Her lawyers say a declaration cannot be stayed. How can a declaration be stayed? You can stay the execution of a judgement or order. Meaning, if the Court gives an order saying Meenachi owes 1 million to Muthu, the Court can stay the execution of that order. When that kind of stay is given, it means that Muthu cannot do anything to recover that 1 million until Meenachi's appeal is heard and decided upon.
But in that case, it is still an accepted fact that Muthu is a holder of an order requiring Meenachi to pay 1 million to Muthu. That order is not reversed. It is valid. The only thing is that Muthu cannot recover that 1 million just yet. Until Meenachi's appeal is heard and decided upon, that is.
But Muthu did not get that kind of order. Muthu obtained a declaration that she was and is a woman. How do you stay that kind of order. Stay what? To stay that kind of declaration would tantamount to the Court of Appeal reversing the declaration which the High Court had granted after full adjudication. That couldn't be. How can the Court of Appeal do that without hearing the appeal on the merit?
To do such thing would tantamount to the CoA not recognising the High Court order. The CoA surely cannot do that. In the hypothetical case of the 1 million order above, the Court does not invalidate that order. The Court just suspends Muthu's right to recover the 1 million. The Court recognises the validity of the order but the Court says Muthu should not recover the 1 million for the time being.
But to stay a declaration is a different game. That is like saying that declaration does not exist for now.
So, Muthu is, for the time being, a man. Muthu is thinking of wearing BLACK all the time.
PS Just as a digression. On Nizar v Zambry declaration, I was thinking. Under section 54 (d) of the Specific Relief Act 1950, no injunction shall be granted to, among others, interfere with the public duties of any department of any Government in Malaysia. Nizar has been declared the Menteri Besar of Perak. Now, the stay which was given operates or at least is intended to stop him from carrying out his duties as the MB of Perak. It operates as an injunction of sort.
Wouldn't section 54 apply? Just a thought.
RELATED ARTICLE
MB SAH DIHARAMKAN, YANG HARAM DIHALALKAN
by
Hanipa Maidin
Peguam
Read here for more
Read related article:
Ramai ingin mengetahui sama ada keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan , Dato Ramly Ali menggantung pelaksanaan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi bermakna Zambry adalah Menteri Besar Perak yang sah ?
Sebelum saya menjawab soalan tersebut, elok rasanya saya berkongsi dengan pembaca tentang perintah-perintah yang diberikan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi pada 11 hb Mei yang lalu. Mahkamah Tinggi ketika mana membenarkan permohonan Dato Seri Nizar Jamaluddin memerintahkan seperti berikut :-
a. Berkenaan tafsiran Fasal 16 ( 6 ) Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Perak bahawa dalam keadaan di mana :Itulah perintah-perintah yang Mahkamah Tinggi keluarkan pada 11 hb Mei yang lalu yang sekaligus menunjukkan secara jelas dan terang bahawa Dato Nizar ( bukannya Zambry ) adalah Menteri Besar Negeri Perak yang sah.
(i) Menteri Besar Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan ingin, dan telah member nasihat, untuk pembubaran Dewan Perhimpunan Undangan Negeri Perak;
(ii) tidak terdapat pembubaran Dewan Perhimpunan Undangan Negeri Perak;
(iii) tidak terdapat usul tidak percaya yang diambil dan diterimapakai dalam dan oleh Dewan Perhimpunan Undangan Negeri Perak terhadap Mentri Besar Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan; dan
(iv) tidak terdapat perletakan jawatan mentri besar Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan;
Mahkamah mengisytiharkan jawatan Mentri Besar Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan ( yang dipegang secara sah oleh Nizar ) tidak boleh dan/atau tidak dikosongkan.
b. Perintah “quo warranto” dikeluarkan kepada Zambry ( Responden ) memerintahkan beliau untuk tunjuk sebab dan memberi maklumat bagaimana dan di bawah dasar atau kuasa atau authoriti mana beliau berhak kononnya memegang jawatan Mentri Besar Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan dan kononnya bertindak dan/atau menjalankan dan/atau melaksanakan tanggungjawab-tanggungjawab, fungsi-fungsi dan tugas-tugas Mentri Besar Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan.
c. Perintah deklarasi bahawa Zambry TIDAK BERHAK untuk dan/atau TIDAK MENJAWAT jawatan Mentri Besar Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan dan BUKANNYA Menteri Besar Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan pada bila-bila masa yang material.
d. Perintah injunksi untuk menghalang Zambry dan/atau agen-agen beliau dan/atau pengkhidmat-pengkhidmat beliau ( seperti Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri ( SUK ) dari bertindak dan/atau menjalankan dan/atau melaksanakan tanggungjawab-tanggungjawab, fungsi-fungsi dan tugas-tugas Mentri Besar Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan.
Pada asalnya selain daripada perintah-perintah tersebut , Nizar juga memohon perintah gantirugi . Namun di atas kesedaran bahawa wang bukanlah matlamat tindakan Mahkamah ini, maka Nizar telah menarik balik tuntutan gantirugi . Jika tidak ditarik terdapat kemungkinan besar Mahkamah Tinggi juga akan menganugerahkan gantirugi kepada Nizar yang mungkin jika ditaksirkan akan mencecah jumlah yang agak tinggi.
Nizar juga tidak memohon agar Zambry perlu membayar kos kepada beliau meskipun menjadi satu prinsip undang-undang pihak yang kalah seperti Zambry perlu membayar kos kepada pihak yang menang ( iaitu Nizar ). Jika Nizar tidak menarik balik perintah kos tersebut saya boleh bayangkan ratusan ribu ringgit yang mungkin Zambry perlu membayar kepada Nizar. Sekali lagi matlamat kewangan bukan faktor yang mendorong Nizar mencabar Zambry di Mahkamah.
Sekarang saya akan menjawab persoalan yang timbul di awal artikel ini. Permohonan untuk penggantungan pelaksanaan penghakiman ( stay of execution of judgment ) selalunya dipohon oleh pihak yang kalah dalam mana-mana prosiding Mahkamah. Permohonan tersebut selalunya dibuat bagi mengekalkan status quo iaitu supaya pihak yang menang tidak boleh menikmati perintah yang diberikan oleh Mahkamah.
Dalam kes ini sebenarnya peguam Zambry telah pada 11 hb Mei memohon secara lisan perintah penggantungan pelaksaanaan tersebut di Mahkamah Tinggi tetapi Mahkamah telah menolak permohonan Zambry tersebut.
Maka Zambry telah pada hari ini ( 12 Mei ) memohon perintah tersebut di Mahkamah Rayuan dan peguam Nizar telah membantah permohonan tersebut. Dari segi undang-undang prinsip yang terpakai bagi permohonan penggantungan pelaksanaan adalah pihak yang memohon tersebut perlu menunjukkan dan meyakinkan Mahkamah bahawa terdapat keadaan yang istimewa atau unik ( special circumstances ) yang menwajarkan perintah yang diberikan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi tidak boleh dinikmati oleh Nizar.
Dalam kes ini nampaknya Mahkamah Rayuan berpendapat wujudnya keadaan istimewa tersebut tetapi kita masih kabur apakah yang keadaan istimewa tersebut kerana saya difahamkan Mahkamah masih belum mengeluarkan alasan penghakiman ( dan mungkin tidak akan mengeluarkan alasan ).
Selalunya jika pun Mahkamah membenarkan perintah penggantungan pelaksanaan Mahkamah akan juga dalam masa yang sama mengenakan syarat-syarat tertentu. Peguam Nizar meminta Mahkamah mengenakan beberapa syarat kepada Zambry namun meskipun peguam Zambry iaitu Dato’ Cecil Abraham pada dasarnya bersetuju syarat dikenakan ke atas Zambry, Peguam Negara pula menentang syarat dikenakan ke atas Zambry.
Adalah jelas dan nyata sejak dari awal Peguam Negara iaitu Ghani Patail tidak pernah menunjukkan sikap neutral di dalam kes ini. Beliau sejak awal menunjukan sikap memihak kepada Zambry meskipun berselindung di sebalik topeng penjaga kepentingan awam. Sikap beliau dari awal menunjukkan beliau adalah penjaga kepentingan Umno.
Peguam Negara sejak awal bersungguh ingin mematikan kes Nizar. Beliaulah yang memohon merujuk kes ini ke Mahkamah Persekutuan di bawah seksyen 84 Akta Mahkamah Keadilan. Di Mahkamah Persekutuan beliau kalah dan kes Nizar masih hidup. Selepas itu beliau sekali lagi menentang bermati-matian agar Mahkamah tidak membenarkan Nizar meneruskan permohonan semakan kehakiman dengan alasan kononnya Nizar mencabar kuasa Sultan Perak. Sekali lagi , Mahkamah tolak hujah beliau dan kes Nizar diteruskan.
Semasa kes Nizar berjalan, beliau sekali lagi berhujah dan memohon Mahkamah menolak permohonan semakan kehakiman ( judicial review ) Nizar. Sekali lagi Mahkamah Tinggi menolak bulat-bulat keseluruhan hujah beliau. Tiada satu pun hujah Peguam Negara yang diterima oleh Yang Arif Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi.
Akhirnya saya ingin jelaskan di sini perintah penggantungan pelaksanaan BUKAN perintah membatalkan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi . Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi masih sah dan mengesahkan bahawa Nizar adalah Menteri Besar yang sah dan Nazri adalah Menteri besar yang haram.
Oleh kerana menteri besar haram merayu mungkin Mahkamah rayuan berpendapat bagilah peluang menteri besar haram tersebut pegang jawatan tersebut sehingga rayuan beliau diputuskan sebab bukankah sejak dari awal beliau telah ketagih dan mabuk dengan kuasa sehingga sanggup membenarkan partinya merompak Kerajaan sah yang diterajui oleh Menteri Besar yang sah dan dipilih secara sah oleh rakyat Perak.
No comments:
Post a Comment