Suspended lawmaker Sulu Sou said that he and his lawyer, Jorge Menezes, will consider taking one of their appeals to Macau’s top court after the Second Instance Court decided “it does not have the jurisdiction to hear the appeal.”
Sou’s defense claim that several irregularities leading up to the December 4 suspension vote at the Legislative Assembly “violated the rules of procedure and fundamental rights of the appellant,” and that this should annul the suspension.
However, the Second Instance Court has refused to consider the appeal on the basis that it does not think it has the authority to rule on affairs of the legislature.
Speaking to the Times last night, Sou said that “the [Second Instance] Court did not decide whether my arguments were right or wrong. The court held the view that this was not a matter for the courts to decide.”
“The court faced a difficult issue, one that will ultimately assist in drawing a constitutional line between two independent bodies, the Legislative Assembly and the courts.”
“From the beginning we wanted the independent judicial system to understand what really happened [during the mandate suspension]. They are now aware, this is their decision and we will accept that.”
Sou said that he and his lawyer “will now consider whether to appeal the decision at the Court of Final Instance.”
In an explanatory statement issued yesterday, the Second Instance Court argued that the deliberation leading to Sou’s mandate suspension did not qualify as an administrative act “since it did not come from any organ of the administration. […] It was, instead, practiced by a legislative body with a political framework.”
“The immunity which members may enjoy in order to prevent them from being tried for their acts is already a prerogative of a political nature,” the court found. It was therefore an act “beyond the control of the courts.”
While acknowledging its inability to rule on political acts, the Second Instance Court also argued that neither it nor any other court in the MSAR – including the Court of Final Appeal – possesses the “legal competence to judge political acts of the Legislative Assembly plenary.”
Asked whether the opinion expressed by the Second Instance Court could be construed as a warning, Sou said yesterday that he would not be deterred from considering an appeal with Macau’s top court.
“We know that an appeal to the Final Instance Court will delay the criminal case [and the possible return of the mandate],” said Sou, “but this case is too important to let go.”
He has previously argued that the unprecedented nature of the case means that its outcome may have a bearing on the future of Macau’s political system.
The young lawmaker is accused of civil disobedience in a lawsuit related to a protest last year against a controversial donation from the Macao Foundation to Jinan University. He was ousted in a secret ballot vote at the Legislative Assembly, with 28 legislators voting in favor and just four against.
No Comments