I am confused

Pakatan loses suit against Perak State Secretary

By Clara Chooi
IPOH, Nov 12 – The High Court here today struck out Pakatan Rakyat Speaker V. Sivakumar’s suit against Perak State Secretary Datuk Dr Abdul Rahman Hashim for abuse of power, which was filed ahead of the controversial Sept 2 assembly sitting in a hotel here.

The case was struck out in the chambers of Judicial Commissioner Tarmizi Abd Rahman today after Sivakumar filed his affidavit in reply to the one filed in response to his suit by Abdul Rahman on Oct 15.

Lawyer Cheang Lek Choy, who represented Sivakumar, said the suit was “struck out with costs” after he emerged from chambers with Sivakumar and state legal adviser Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid, who represented Abdul Rahman.

The Malaysian Insider understands that Tarmizi had said Sivakumar had no locus standi to file the suit, in view of the fact that he was no longer the state assembly’s Speaker, a post with which he had used when he filed his summons in chambers on Sept 1.

Sivakumar had filed the summons one day before the Sept 2 sitting, seeking an ex-parte injunction against Abdul Rahman. The injunction was to stop Abdul Rahman from “abusing his power” and preventing Pakatan Rakyat representatives from convening the sitting inside the state assembly hall at the State Secretariat.
_________________________________________________________________

I am not a lawyer, let alone a constitutional one. I cannot understand the reason for the verdict.

Abdul Rahman is on trial and he is being contested for acting "ultra vires" (Utusan Malaysia, please take note. it means "acting beyond one's power", not "to insult) so why can't he be judged on that.

Instead it appears to a layman like me that Sivakumar is on trial. I am trying to understand the learnt judge's reasoning and put my retarded brain into motion.

Ok, hypothetically speaking, I have a house that was burglarised and I caught the thief. Since criminal law afford no compensation for me, I take the bugger to civil court and sue him for stealing and selling off my things, hoping to get a compensation.

Suddenly I lost my house because I did not pay for my housing installments so the court told me off by saying that since I do not own the house anymore. I have no right against the thief who took away my belongings .

I may be wrong, I could be wrong. Looks like I am wrong, sounds like I am wrong but am I wrong or korek korek korek?

Anyway, it is not about Pakatan winning the case, it is about how much our judicial system has progressed under Najib since the crises of 1988 till Badawi's appointment of Zaid Ibrahim as law minister but now back to the ever combative Nasri

It is a KPI of Najib's administration that is transparent to all Malaysians who are interested in having a law abiding, law respecting and civilised nation. This, hopefully, would be a factor that Malaysian voters consider as they weight up the effectiveness of Najib administration.