Parti Warisan Sabah president Shafie Apdal was sworn in as chief minister on May 10.
KOTA KINABALU: A Sabah lawyer contends that the vote of confidence by 43 state assemblymen in Shafie Apdal as chief minister in the special state legislative assembly sitting does not prove the latter is the lawful chief minister.
Henry Gudid also questioned the need for the motion of a vote of confidence in the Parti Warisan Sabah president.
“It is because Shafie needs to establish that (Sabah Barisan Nasional chief) Musa Aman does not enjoy the support of the majority. But a vote of confidence in him does not mean that it is a vote of no confidence in Musa.
“If at all, the special sitting on Monday only proves that Musa was the lawful chief minister of Sabah before the sitting. Otherwise, why would you wish to have a vote of confidence in Shafie so as to remove Musa?”
In a statement today, Gudid said some of those who had voted were elected on a BN ticket, and there was no denying that they could also have voted in support of Musa if there had been such a motion, with voting done through the ballot.
He said Musa was sworn in with his Sabah Cabinet ministers on the night of May 10 as he had the support of 29 assemblymen who were properly elected as declared by the Election Commission.
This included the two assemblymen from Parti Solidariti Tanah Airku (STAR) who agreed to form a coalition government.
“Having established that Musa is the lawful chief minister, it means that the swearing-in of Shafie on May 12 and his subsequent Cabinet on May 16 are all unlawful and null and void,” Gudid said.
“It also means that all actions and steps taken by Shafie after his swearing-in are unlawful and null and void. This includes the appointment of his Cabinet, the appointment of nominated members of the assembly, as well as all decisions made by him, his Cabinet and all actions taken by the state secretary and the administration pursuant to the decisions.
“This would be the consequence when Musa is successful in his court action.”
The other issue in contention, he said, would be the validity of the special sitting.
“Reading from the notice calling for the sitting, it is only with six clear days’ notice and without any mention of any incident of emergency which seems to be a non-compliance of the mandatory 21 days’ notice required under the standing orders to constitute a valid notice.
“This would probably be taken up as an additional ground in Musa’s case,” he said. - FMT
No comments:
Post a Comment