THE Dewan Rakyat voted a motion to suspend Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal (Machang-PN) cum Bersatu Youth chief with 110 MPs in favour, 63 against, and three abstaining. Another 46 MPs were absent.
The motion, which was tabled by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said, alleged that Wan Fayhsal committed an act of citing a “poison pen letter” – which mentioned an alleged mastermind behind Malaysia Airport Holdings Bhd’s (MAHB) privatisation – when debating the annual report of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) for 2021 and 2022 in Dewan Rakyat earlier this month.
By citing such an anonymous letter during his parliamentary debates on July 1, Wan Ahmad Fayhsal was accused of maligning civil servants using unverified information.
The media reported that the Machang MP was not granted a chance to defend himself in the house when the motion was tabled in the Dewan Rakyat.
The MP alleged on his Facebook page that he was not accorded the right to be heard, especially in defending his right to reply to the allegations.
The media also reported that Pasir Gudang MP Hassan Abdul Karim had emerged as an unlikely advocate for the Machang MP following a motion for a six-month suspension of the latter from the Dewan Rakyat.
Hassan reportedly stood up, saying; “It is the right to be heard – natural justice. The accused (Wan Ahmad Fayhsal) needs to answer.
“What is the problem? He has the right to be heard. The decision not to give the accused the right to respond is unjust.”
To everyone’s surprise, both the speaker and minister in the Prime Minister’s Department seemed to brush off the need to grant the Machang MP the right to be heard when Azalina, for instance, claimed that such a right was not accorded in these circumstances.
Both also pointed to historical precedence, while Azalina said, “We are judged by our peers (other MPs)”.
From the factual matrix of the case (I stand corrected), it was not clear why the government opted not to refer the Machang MP to the Committee of Privileges for the aforementioned alleged offence.
Instead, the government seemed to be satisfied to rush for justice by filing a motion in the Dewan Rakyat and having Wan Ahmad Fayhsal be solely judged via votes from his peers.
In my view, since the government apparently insisted on punishing the Machang MP with such a stiff punishment, it would be best and prudent for the Madani government to file a motion referring the same MP to a Committee of Privileges and let the latter deal with the said MP.
Based on my experience as a two-term MP, I would argue the hearing by a Committee of Privileges would be relatively just and fair. At the very least, the accused, like Wan Ahmad Fayhsal, would certainly be given the right to be heard!
Since the government happily opted to resort to a drastic measure by simply filing the motion in the Dewan to have Wan Ahmad Fayhsal punished “by his own peers” – using Azalina’s words – the very least the government should have meticulously paid heed to was that his fundamental right to be heard should have never been denied, come what may.
After all, the honourable PM has been vocal in promoting reform. Punishing a person without being given a right to be heard, with due respect, is an emblem of deform!
Why such a fundamental right to be heard by Wan Ahmad Fayhsal was brazenly declined still remains a mystery – at least to me.
Legally speaking, the decision by the House to suspend the Machang MP for six months may be problematic.
It is difficult not to agree with opinions arguing that such a mind-boggling decision may violate the principle of natural justice.
In essence, natural justice includes two fundamental principles.
The first, “audi alteram partem” – which relates to the right to be heard. The second, “nemo debet esse judex in propriasua causa” or “nemo judex in re sua” – which establishes the right to an unbiased tribunal.
Anyway, this matter may be susceptible to judicial review. Lest we forget, in judicial review hearings, the law is not really interested in the decision per se, but rather in the decision-making process.
If the decision-making process is utterly flawed, the decision would not be legally sustainable.
I am of the view that, based on the factual matrix of the case, the decision seemed to be procedurally flawed – and it was also allegedly infected by elements of illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, and the principle of Wednesbury unreasonableness.
It goes without saying that all these principles are rooted in the concept of fairness. – July 20, 2024
Mohamed Hanipa Maidin is a former deputy law minister and has a master’s degree in international law