©New Sunday Times
(Used by permission)
by Jaswinder Kaur
KOTA KINABALU: Sabah and Sarawak lawyers are unhappy with a decision allowing
lawyers from Peninsular Malaysia to represent clients in civil and criminal
appeals originating from the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak when the Court of
Appeal sits in the peninsula.
The Sabah Law Association (SLA) and Advocates Association
Sarawak (AAS) feel that this was contrary to the agreement that led to the
formation of Malaysia in 1963.
In a joint statement, SLA president Datuk John Sikayun and AAS head Frank Tang
said the decision had violated the Malaysia Agreement and eroded the sanctity
and constitutional safeguards agreed between Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak in
forming Malaysia.
"We are shocked and dismayed that such a decision has been made by the Court of
Appeal which takes away the right of lawyers in Sabah and Sarawak to appear in
appeal cases originating from Sabah and Sarawak merely by the fixing of the
cases to be heard in Peninsular Malaysia.
"This right which is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution cannot be taken away
by a mere administrative act. The AAS and SLA will bring this matter up to the
relevant authorities. If the opportunity arises on an appeal to the Federal
Court, we will ask to be heard on this issue," Sikayun and Tang said.
Court of Appeal judge Datuk Gopal Sri Ram, in a case in which
the court dismissed an objection by lawyers appearing for businessman Muhammad
Tufail Mahmud and eight others from Sarawak, wrote that "the president may
direct an appeal against the decision of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak to
be heard by the Court of Appeal anywhere in the states of Malaya."
Lawyers for Tufail and the eight others objected after businessman Datuk Ting
Cheuk Sii engaged peninsula–based lawyer Tommy Thomas to argue his appeal over a
company matter and a winding–up dispute.
The lawyers argued that the Advocates Ordinance of Sarawak prevented
peninsula–based law–yers from appearing for clients over matters arising from
the state.
Sri Ram said a collective reading of certain provisions in the ordinance stated
that a Sarawak lawyer may appear in the High Court and the Federal Court that
convened in the state to hear appeals but that there was a glaring omission
about the right of audience before the Court of Appeal arising from decisions of
the High Court in Sarawak.