Sivakumar can have private counsel

Perak State Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar can appoint his own lawyer against the suits filed by two parties.
The Court of Appeal said there “is no provision in any law that the Speaker must be represented by the state legal adviser. (He) is not a state officer or a government of the state under Section 24(3) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956.”
“We uphold that the Speaker is at liberty to engage his own private advocate and solicitor,” said Justice Md Raus Sharif who sat with Justices Abdull Hamid Embong and Ahmad Ma’arop.
The ruling overturned the decision made by Judicial Commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim (on March 3, 5, and 11) who insisted that Sivakumar could only be represented by the Perak state legal adviser.
Sivakumar wanted his own counsel to represent him in the suit filed by three independents seeking a declaration that they are still elected representatives.
The other suit is by Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abd Kadir and his six exco members who are challenging Sivakumar’s decision to suspend them from the state assembly.
During the proceedings, state legal adviser Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid argued that Sivakumar was being sued as a Speaker and not a separate entity from the state legislative and he (Ahmad Kamal) was duty bound to represent the Speaker.
Justice Abdull Hamid asked if there would be a conflict of interest as he would also be representing Dr Zambry.
“How does that look to you? You representing sini dan sana (here and there). Or are you facing your assistant? Where do you stand? Tengah-tengah (in the middle)? You are counsel for both sides,” he asked.
Ahmad Kamal replied that he represented Dr Zambry in the High Court only and not the Federal Court and he does not see a conflict of interest.
“In your heart you say there is no conflict but conflict of interest is a form of perception. It is seen to be. Let me ask you an honest question and please answer sincerely, does it not look odd to you?” asked Justice Abdull Hamid.
Ahmad Kamal replied: “It does look odd but as a state legal adviser, I am just doing my job. There is a possibility it looks weird, but for me it does not.”
Dr Zambry’s counsel Syed Faisal Syed Abdullah argued that Sivakumar was drawing salary from the consolidated fund of the Perak state government, thus making him a government servant of the state.
Counsel Tommy Thomas, for Sivakumar, said: “The Yang Di-Pertuan Agong and the Sultan are paid by consolidated funds but by no stretch of imagination can you describe them coming under the Government Proceedings Act.”
After the verdict was read, Thomas asked the Court of Appeal to order the Ipoh High Court to fix a new judge to replace JC Ridwan from further hearing the suits.
Md Raus refused and said Sivakumar could apply for one at the Ipoh Court.