The ROS has today said that its earlier position that it does not recognize the CEC of the DAP re-elected on 29.9.2013 remains.
He also seems to be at a loss over what happened in court on 23.9.2014.
The ROS doesn’t seem to understand the legal position. I think he should refer to his lawyers for details over what happened in court that day.
The ROS was represented by Senior Federal Counsel from the Attorney-Generals chambers.
It was more than crystal clear to all who were present that the ROS agreed that its earlier position that it did not recognize the newly elected CEC of the DAP was “not legally binding.”
Here is a transcript of what was read out in court that morning.
“There are three parts of concern in the letter of the ROS to DAP Secretary General Lim Guan Eng dated 6.12.2013.
The first relates to a request for documents under s14 of the Societies Act 1966. There is no problem with this request. The DAP has complied with it and will continue to assist the ROS in any queries it has relating to the affairs of the DAP.
The second relates to a statement made by the ROS in the said letter to the effect that the ROS is yet unable to recognize the re-election of the CEC of the DAP on 29.9.2013 and;
The third relates to advice given to Lim Guan Eng that the new CEC which “belum disahkan” cannot make decisions for and on behalf of the DAP until further notice from the ROS.
The ROS takes the position that those statements do not amount to any decision in law. As such, those orders are not legally binding and remain merely advice to the DAP and the ROS recognises that the DAP CEC elected on 29.9.2013 may carry out all its powers, functions and duties in the administration of the daily affairs of the DAP in accordance with the Constitution of the DAP.”
The position taken by the ROS now puts the Attorney-General’s chambers in very bad light. Is the ROS now saying the Attorney-General’s chambers has no authority to make that concession on their behalf?
In any event, the burden is now not on the DAP to show legality but on ROS to show otherwise.
It is clear, as is the position taken by the DAP all along that the ROS is not empowered in law to withhold recognition of our CEC. There is also no law which allows him to direct the CEC not to make any decisions for the DAP pending inquiries.
As far as we are concerned, the CEC of the DAP may therefore go ahead and carry out all its powers, functions and duties in the administration of the daily affairs of the DAP in accordance with the Constitution of the DAP.
In the meanwhile, we reserve our rights in the matter, including the right to move committal proceedings in the matter if necessary.