Alhamdulillah, akhirnya kebenaran berjaya juga mengatasi kebatilan.
Firman Allah, mafhumnya: Dan janganlah kamu mencampuradukkan yang benar itu dengan yang salah dan kamu sembunyikan yang benar itu pula padahal kamu semua mengetahuinya. (Surah al-Baqarah: Ayat 42)
Firman Allah lagi, mafhumnya: Dan katakanlah, “Telah datang kebenaran (Islam) dan hilang lenyaplah perkara yang salah (kufur dan syirik), sesungguhnya yang salah itu sememangnya satu perkara yang tetap lenyap”. (Surah al-Isra’: Ayat 81)
Bersama-sama ini disertakan laporan-laporan agensi-agensi berita Bernama dan AFP bertarikh 26 November 2010 serta laporan-laporan akhbar-akhbar Kosmo!, Berita Harian, Utusan Malaysia, New Straits Times, The Star dan Sinar Harian bertarikh 27 November 2010 mengenai pengiktirafan Mahkamah Persekutuan ke atas keabsahan Sultan Muhammad Ke-V selaku Sultan Kelantan.
Tidak dapat disangkal lagi bahawa keputusan secara sebulat suara yang telah dibuat oleh Hakim-Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan ke atas kedua-dua petisyen ini sekaligus menjadikan keputusan ke atas satu lagi petisyen yang masih belum dibicarakan sebagai tidak lebih daripada satu latihan akademik semata-mata.
Adalah diharapkan bahawa keputusan yang telah dibuat oleh Hakim-Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan ke atas kedua-dua petisyen ini akan melenyapkan terus apa-apa keraguan ke atas keabsahan Sultan Muhammad Ke-V yang masih timbul atau yang masih sengaja ditimbulkan dengan niat-niat tertentu oleh mana-mana pihak.
Allahu Akbar.
Federal Court Dismisses Ex-Kelantan Sultan's Petitions
(Bernama)
PUTRAJAYA, Nov 26 (Bernama) -- The Regent of Kelantan assumed full power of the Sultan under the Laws of the Kelantan Constitution, once the ruler was incapacitated, the Federal Court ruled here Friday.
Federal Court judge Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, heading a three-man panel, said the Kelantan Constitution also envisaged for the Regent to carry out the royal functions as a Sultan would have had if His Royal Highness was not incapacitated.
"We are of the view that there can be only one individual attending to the affairs of the State of Kelantan at any one time," he said.
Therefore, Zulkefli said, Tuanku Ismail Petra Ibni Sultan Yahya Petra had no locus (legal standing) to refer questions for determination of the Federal Court concerning the Regent's power and authority during a Sultan's incapacitation.
The panel, which also comprises justices Datuk Md Raus Sharif and Datuk Abdull Hamid Embong, unanimously dismissed two petitions filed by Tuanku Ismail Petra after allowing a preliminary objection raised by counsel Tan Sri Cecil Abraham representing respondent, Sultan Muhammad V (Tuanku Muhammad Faris Petra), that his father did not have the jurisdiction to refer questions.
Tuanku Ismail Petra who filed the petitions respectively, on May 5 and June 22, this year, named Sultan Muhammad V and the Kelantan Government as respondents.
In the petitions, Tuanku Ismail Petra sought the opinion of the apex court to determine several questions of law on whether Sultan Muhammad V, then acting as the Regent of the state, among others, had the authority to remove and appoint any member of the Council of Succession.
Another question which Tuanku Ismail Petra sought the Federal Court to determine was whether Sultan Muhammad V, as the then-regent, had the power to restrict Tuanku Ismail Petra's movement to within Istana Mahkota, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan.
Sultan Muhammad V (Tuanku Muhammad Faris Petra) was appointed the Regent of Kelantan on May 24, last year, by the Council of Succession by reason of his father's illness.
On Sept 13, Sultan Muhammad V was appointed the Sultan of Kelantan by the Council of Succession. Tuanku Ismail Petra has been incapacitated since May last year.
In his 33-page judgment, Zulkefli said Tuanku Ismail Petra could not exercise his powers as His Royal Highness under the Kelantan Constitution, pending ascension of the Regency while he was incapacitated.
"This is because due to the incapacitation of the petitioner (Tuanku Ismail Petra) as the then Sultan of Kelantan, it is the Regent of Kelantan and the Regent of Kelantan alone who is to exercise the powers attributed to "His Royal Highness" under the Laws of the Constitution of Kelantan," he said.
The judge said Tuanku Ismail Petra might only exercise such powers upon returning to Kelantan and assuming office as the Sultan of Kelantan.
"On the facts before us, the petitioner did not do so upon returning to the State of Kelantan on or about March 2010. In fact, the petitioner remains incapacitated and the first respondent (Sultan Muhammad V) continued to act as the Regent of Kelantan.
"In the light of the above, the petitioner is not permitted to exercise any power vested with "His Royal Highness" whilst there exists a Regency.
"The petitioner being incapacitated cannot be exercising such a power unless he has recovered from such incapacitation," he said.
Zulkefli said there was no distinction between the powers exercised by Sultan Muhammad V when he was the Regent of Kelantan and the powers exercised by a reigning Sultan, regardless of whether Sultan Muhammad V was appointed by the Council of Succession or by the then-Sultan of Kelantan, Tuanku Ismail Petra.
Kelantan's ex-sultan loses bid to reclaim throne
(AFP)
KUALA LUMPUR: A three-member Federal Court panel threw out two petitions by Tengku Ismail Petra Yahya Petra, the former ruler of northern Kelantan state, in favor of his eldest son, Tengku Muhammad Faris Petra, who is now Sultan Muhammad V.
After months of palace intrigue that captivated Malaysia, Tengku Muhammad Faris was appointed the new ruler in September, using his powers as regent to replace his frail father who has been incapacitated since a stroke a year ago.
The former Sultan’s two sons had been at loggerheads for the past year since the younger brother was removed from the state’s succession council, which determines who is the next ruler.
In handing down the unanimous judgement on two of three petitions filed against the present Kelantan ruler, Justice Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin said the Regent was vested with all the powers of the Sultan.
“We are of the view that there can be only one individual attending to affairs of the state of Kelantan at any one time,” he said.
Malaysia has nine Sultans, who are the royal rulers and guardians of Islam in their respective states. Under a unique rotating monarchy, they each take turns to rule for five years as the nation’s king.
The royals assume a ceremonial role and rarely speak publicly. The events in Kelantan — including earlier allegations that the ailing Sultan had been held in hospital against his will — caused a major stir.
Last year, the Kelantan royals were embroiled in another controversy when the teenage wife of the younger son slipped away and returned to her family in Indonesia alleging abuse, rape and torture by the prince.
The former ruler’s lawyer Azhar Azizan Harun, said the court disagreed with their assertion that, as regent, Tengku Muhammad Faris’ authority and powers were limited.
“The effect of today’s ruling is that once the regent is appointed, he is able to exercise all royal functions,” he said.
Azhar said the court had yet to rule on a third petition which challenged the present Sultan’s amendment of the state constitution in order to allow for more grounds to declare his father incapacitated.
“No date has been set for a ruling on the third petition and I will have to seek instructions from my client on how to proceed,” he said.
Ex-ruler fails in court bid
(New Straits Times, muka surat 11)
PUTRAJAYA: The regent of Kelantan is the only person who can exercise the powers attributed to His Royal Highness due to the incapacitation of the former Sultan of Kelantan.
As such, the former ruler of Kelantan, Tuanku Ismail Petra Ibni Sultan Yahya Petra, has no power to refer questions of law as he was no longer a Sultan.
This was ruled by the apex court yesterday in dismissing Tuanku Ismail Petra's two petitions without costs, which were filed against his eldest son, Sultan Muhammad V (Tuanku Muhammad Faris Petra).
He also named the Kelantan government as the second respondent.
Tuanku Ismail Petra had sought the opinion of the court to determine his son's powers to reconstitute the Council of Succession and the fundamental liberties of the sultan.
The three-man bench, comprising Federal Court judges Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, Datuk Seri Raus Sharif and Datuk Abdull Hamid Embong, said there could only be one individual attending to affairs of Kelantan at any one time.
"In this instance, due to the incapacitation of the petitioner, the regent of Kelantan and the acting ruler of the state is the only person entitled to exercise the powers of His Royal Highness," said Zulkefli.
"The petitioner being incapacitated cannot be exercising such a power unless he has recovered from incapacitation."
Therefore, Zulkefli said, Tuanku Ismail Petra had no locus standi to refer questions of law to the court.
He said this in allowing the jurisdictional objection raised by Sultan Muhammad V's counsel, Tan Sri Cecil Abraham, previously.
"The petitioner's principal complaint focused on the first respondent's purported exercise of his discretionary powers as a Regent in revoking Tengku Muhammad Fakhry Petra's appointment as a Member of the Council of Succession, among others," he said.
"To the petitioner, the first respondent was not empowered to exercise such discretion in the performance of his royal functions as a regent."
Zulkefli said there was no distinction between the powers exercised by a reigning Sultan appointed by the council and the previous Sultan.
He said among the duties of the council was to choose, appoint and confirm an heir as reigning sovereign on failure of eligible heirs or refusal to confirm any eligible heirs. This could only be exercised in circumstances when there was no reigning sovereign or when the sovereign was incapacitated.
"The petitioner's contention that the appointment of the regent by the Council of Succession is of lesser effect than if the regent was appointed by the sovereign is not supported by law and is unsustainable."
Therefore, Zulkefli said, the definition of "His Royal Highness" includes the regent and the regent was to have all the powers and to carry out the royal functions as the Sultan of Kelantan would have had the then sultan not been incapacitated.
"The petitioner may only exercise his powers upon returning to the State and assuming office as the Sultan of Kelantan," he said.
Tuanku Ismail Petra filed his petitions on May 5 and June 22. In his first petition, he sought an opinion of the Federal Court on two issues:
- Whether the regent of the state, acting during the sultan's incapacitation, was entitled to assume for himself the full powers of the Sultan, to so conduct himself as if the Sultan was no longer the sovereign of the state;
- Whether the regent, acting as such during the Sultan's incapacitation, has the power or authority to appoint or remove any member of the Council of Succession appointed by the Sultan.
In his second petition, he sought the court's opinion on additional questions related to the fundamental liberties of the Sultan.
Tuanku Ismail Petra has remained incapacitated after suffering a stroke in May last year.
New Sultan is right, rules court
(The Star, muka surat N36)
PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has ruled that a Regent has the exclusive power to carry out royal functions when the Sultan is incapacitated.
In a landmark ruling – dismissing two petitions filed by former Kelantan Ruler, Tuanku Ismail Petra Sultan Yahya Petra, over the meaning of the phrase “His Royal Highness” and fundamental liberties of the Sultan – the apex court held that then Kelantan Regent, Tengku Muhammad Faris Petra (current Ruler Sultan Muhammad V), was vested with all the powers of “His Royal Highness” under various provisions in the state constitution.
Senior Federal (Counsel) Datin Azizah Nawawi, who acted for the Attorney-General’s Chambers, told The Star that this was a landmark case as the apex court had interpreted for the first time the extent of a Regent’s power.
“This ruling means that the Regent can carry out the functions of a Sultan where the term refers to His Royal Highness. It will apply to other states which have similar provisions on the power of a Regent,” added Azizah. “Once the Regency is appointed, there can only be one Ruler in the state.”
In allowing the jurisdictional objection by Tengku Muhammad Faris yesterday, Federal Court judge, Justice Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, said:
“It is our judgment; having noted that the definition of ‘His Royal Highness’ includes the Regent, it is therefore clear that the Kelantan Constitution had envisaged for the Regent to have all the powers to carry out the royal functions as the Sultan of Kelantan would have, had the Sultan not been incapacitated.”
With him on the panel were Federal Court judges Justice Md Raus Sharif and Abdull Hamid Embong.
“We are of the view that there can be only one individual attending to affairs of the state at any one time. In this instance, due to the incapacitation of the petitioner, the first respondent as the Regent and the acting Ruler is the only person entitled to exercise the powers of ‘His Royal Highness’ within the meaning of the Kelantan Constitution,” Justice Zulkefli Ahmad added when reading out the unanimous decision.
The Bench also ruled that there was no distinction between the powers exercised by Tengku Muhammad Faris when he was Regent and the powers exercised by a reigning Sultan regardless of whether he (Tengku Muhammad Faris) was appointed by the Council of Succession or by the then Sultan of Kelantan.
Tuanku Ismail filed petitions on May 5, June 22 and Sept 20, and named Tengku Muhammad Faris and the Kelantan Government as respondents.
Justice Zulkefli said that the contention of Tuanku Ismail that different powers were vested on a Regent appointed by the council and himself as a sovereign was unsustainable.
Mahkamah Persekutuan Tolak Petisyen Bekas Sultan Kelantan
(Bernama, Kosmo! muka surat 2, Berita Harian muka surat 6 dan Utusan Malaysia muka surat 15)
PUTRAJAYA, 26 Nov (Bernama) -- Mahkamah Persekutuan di sini memutuskan bahawa Tengku Mahkota Kelantan berkuasa penuh sebagai Sultan apabila Sultan negeri itu mengalami ketidakupayaan seperti yang diperuntukkan oleh Perlembagaan Negeri Kelantan.
Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan, Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, yang mengetuai panel tiga hakim, berkata Perlembagaan Negeri Kelantan juga memperuntukkan bahawa Tengku Mahkota boleh melaksanakan tugas Sultan walaupun Sultan tidak mengalami ketidakupayaan.
"Kami berpendapat hanya seorang individu patut menguruskan hal ehwal Negeri Kelantan pada satu-satu masa," kata beliau.
Oleh itu, kata, Zulkefli, Tuanku Ismail Petra Ibni Sultan Yahya Petra tidak mempunyai kedudukan daripada segi undang-undang untuk meminta Mahkamah Persekutuan membuat keputusan tentang persoalan berkaitan kuasa dan kewibawaan Tengku Mahkota itu ketika Sultan mengalami ketidakupayaan.
Panel itu, yang turut dianggotai Hakim Datuk Md Raus Sharif dan Hakim Datuk Abdull Hamid Embong, sebulat suara menolak petisyen Tuanku Ismail Petra setelah membenarkan bantahan awal peguam Tan Sri Cecil Abraham, yang mewakili responden, Sultan Muhammad V (Tuanku Muhammad Faris Petra), bahawa ayahanda baginda tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk merujuk persoalan tersebut kepada mahkamah berkenaan.
Tuanku Ismail Petra, yang memfailkan petisyen berkenaan pada 5 Mei dan 22 Jun tahun ini, menamakan Sultan Muhammad V dan Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan sebagai responden.
Dalam petisyen itu, Tuanku Ismail Petra memohon Mahkamah Persekutan membuat keputusan tentang beberapa persoalan undang-undang sama ada Sultan Muhammad V, yang memangku jawatan Tengku Mahkota ketika itu, mempunyai kuasa untuk memecat atau melantik anggota Majlis Perajaan.
Satu lagi persoalan yang Tuanku Ismail Petra minta Mahkamah Persekutuan pertimbangkan ialah sama ada Sultan Muhammad V, yang menjadi Tengku Mahkota ketika itu, mempunyai kuasa untuk mengehadkan pergerakan Tuanku Ismail Petra hanya di dalam Istana Mahkota, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan.
Sultan Muhammad V (Tuanku Muhammad Faris Petra) dilantik sebagai Tengku Mahkota Kelantan pada 24 Mei tahun lepas oleh Majlis Perajaan atas alasan ayahanda baginda gering.
Pada 13 Sept, Sultan Muhammad V dilantik sebagai Sultan Kelantan oleh Majlis Perajaan. Tuanku Ismail Petra mengalami ketidakupayaan sejak Mei tahun lepas.
Dalam penghakiman setebal 33 muka surat, Zulkefli berkata Tuanku Ismail Petra tidak boleh melaksanakan kuasa sebagai Sultan mengikut Perlembagaan Negeri Kelantan selagi Tengku Mahkota menyandang jawatan ketika baginda mengalami ketidakupayaan.
"Ini kerana, disebabkan ketidakupayaan pempetisyen (Tuanku Ismail Petra) sebagai Sultan Kelantan ketika itu, Tengku Mahkota Kelantanlah dan hanya Tengku Mahkota Kelantan sahaja yang akan melaksanakan kuasa yang diberi kepada 'Sultan' mengikut Perlembagaan Negeri Kelantan," kata beliau.
Katanya Tuanku Ismail Petra hanya boleh melaksanakan kuasa itu setelah kembali semula ke Kelantan dan menyandang jawatan sebagai Sultan Kelantan.
"Mengikut fakta yang ada di hadapan kami, pempetisyen tidak berbuat demikian sebaik saja pulang ke Kelantan pada atau kira-kira pada Mac 2010. Malah, pempetisyen terus berada dalam keadaan tidak berupaya manakala responden pertama (Sultan Muhammad V) terus menjadi Tengku Mahkota Kelantan.
"Berlandaskan alasan di atas, pempetisyen tidak boleh melaksanakan sebarang kuasa yang diperuntukkan kepada 'Sultan' selagi ada Tengku Mahkota.
"Pempetisyen, yang mengalami ketidakupayaan, tidak boleh melaksanakan kuasa itu, melainkan beliau pulih daripada ketidakupayaan yang dialaminya," kata beliau.
Zulkefli berkata tiada bezanya antara kuasa yang dilaksanakan Sultan Muhammad V ketika baginda menjadi Tengku Mahkota Kelantan dan kuasa yang dilaksanakan seorang Sultan yang memerintah, tanpa mengira sama ada Sultan Muhammad V dilantik oleh Majlis Perajaan atau oleh Sultan Kelantan ketika itu, Tuanku Ismail Petra.
Sultan Muhammad V kekal berkuasa
(Kosmo! Muka surat 1)
Krisis perlembagaan di Kelantan akhirnya terungkai semalam apabila panel tiga hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan sebulat suara memutuskan bahawa Sultan Muhammad V, Tuanku Muhammad Faris Petra, berkuasa penuh sebagai Sultan negeri itu.
Berdasarkan Perlembagaan Negeri Kelantan, Tuanku Muhammad Faris yang sebelum ini merupakan Tengku Mahkota Kelantan juga berkuasa penuh apabila Sultan negeri itu mengalami ketidakupayaan seperti yang diperuntukkan oleh perlembagaan.
Malah panel tiga hakim juga menegaskan bahawa disebabkan masalah ketidakupayaan Tuanku Ismail Petra turut menyebabkan baginda tidak mempunyai kedudukan undang-undang untuk mencabar kedudukan Sultan sekarang.
“Kami berpendapat hanya seorang individu patut menguruskan hal ehwal Negeri Kelantan pada satu-satu masa,” tegas panel tiga hakim diketuai oleh Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan, Tan Sri Zulkefl Ahmad Makinudin itu.
Dua lagi hakim terlibat dalam membuat keputusan itu ialah Hakim Datuk Md. Raus Sharif dan Hakim Datuk Abdull Hamid Embong.
Bekas Sultan tiada hak rujuk isu Perlembagaan
(Sinar Harian muka surat N15)
PUTRAJAYA – Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan bekas Sultan Kelantan, Tuanku Ismail Petra Ibni Sultan Yahya Petra, tiada hak di sisi undang-undang untuk merujuk isu Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri kerana tidak lagi Sultan akibat hilang keupayaan.
Panel tiga hakim dipengerusikan Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin membuat keputusan itu setelah menolak dua petisyen difailkan bekas Sultan Kelantan terhadap anak sulungnya, Tuanku Muhammad Faris Petra, dan Kerajaan Kelantan.
Zulkefli berkata, hanya seorang individu boleh bergelar Sultan dalam tempoh satu masa.
“Pempetisyen kehilangan upaya tidak boleh menjalankan kuasa seorang Sultan melainkan baginda sembuh,” katanya.
Tuanku Muhammad Faris Petra dimasyhurkan Sultan Kelantan ke-29 pada 13 September lalu dikenali Sultan Muhammad V, setelah Tuanku Ismail Petra gering sejak Mei tahun lalu.
Mahkamah juga memutuskan Sultan Muhammad V, ketika itu Pemangku Sultan dan Sultan Kelantan buat masa sekarang, mempunyai kuasa menjalankan tugas ketika Sultan tidak berupaya berbuat demikian.
“Sultan Ismail Petra hanya boleh menjalankan kuasa Sultan apabila kembali ke Kelantan dan mengambil alih tampuk pemerintahan kerajaan negeri. Berdasarkan fakta di hadapan kami, pempetisyen tidak berbuat demikian selepas pulang Mac lalu.
“Sebaliknya, pempetisyen masih kehilangan upaya dan responden pertama (Tuanku Muhammad Faris Petra) kekal bertindak sebagai Sultan. Sehubungan itu, pempetisyen tidak dibenarkan menjalankan tugas Sultan dalam kewujudan pemangku,” katanya.
Hakim Zulkefli bersidang bersama Datuk Seri Md Rauf Sharif dan Datuk Abdull Hamid Embong.
Zulkefli dalam penghakimannya berkata, mahkamah tertinggi negara memutuskan Tuanku Ismail Petra tidak mempunyai kuasa mengikut Perlembagaan Negeri merujuk untuk mendapatkan pandangan mengenai kuasa seorang pemangku raja semasa Sultan hilang keupayaan.
Selain itu, Zulkefli berkata, tiada perbezaan Tuanku Muhammad Faris Petra dalam menjalankan tugas Pemangku Sultan atau Sultan, tidak kira dilantik sendiri Tuanku Ismail Petra atau Majlis Perajaan Negeri (MPN).
