Nizar's lead counsel Sulaiman Abdullah argued that the Sultan could not dismiss Nizar as Perak menteri besar as the menteri besar did not hold office at the Sultan's pleasure, but was subject to the confidence of the state legislative assembly members.

Sulaiman cited the 1966 case of Sarawak's first Chief Minister Datuk Stephen Kalong Ningkan against the then Sarawak Governor Tun Abang Haji Openg where the Kuching High Court ruled that the Sarawak governor could only dismiss the chief minister if the latter lacked confidence, as demonstrated by a vote in the Council Negri.

Nizar's suit was "substantially identical" to that of Ningkan's case and thus the court should apply the Kuching High Court's decision in Ningkan's case, Sulaiman said.

He reiterated that Nizar did not request the assembly's dissolution on the basis that he had lost majority confidence but to avoid a possible "deadlock" in the state assembly where fresh elections would be appropriate to determine the new state government.

The High Court is hearing the suit brought by Nizar challenging the validity of Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir holding office as Perak menteri besar.

The Perak assembly fell into a stalemate after three Pakatan Rakyat (PR) assemblymen — Mohd Osman Jailu (Changkat Jering), Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang) and Hee Yit Foong (Jelapang) — quit their respective parties to stand as independents friendly to Barisan Nasional (BN).

Following the defections, BN, which has 28 assemblymen, now has a three-seat advantage over Pakatan Rakyat's (PR) 28 representatives.

Sultan Azlan Shah on Feb 6 appointed Zambry as menteri besar after deeming the latter to command the majority confidence of the assembly.

Attorney-General (AG) Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, appearing as an intervener in the matter, submitted that the Perak Constitution only provided for the menteri besar to seek the assembly's dissolution in the event that the menteri besar lost the majority confidence of the assembly or prior to the expiry of the assembly's five-year term.

"The constitution does not provide for any government to ask for dissolution under other circumstances, political or otherwise," Abdul Gani said.

Sulaiman, however, disagreed with Abdul Gani, arguing that the menteri besar could request dissolution in other circumstances, not limited to facing a loss of the assembly's majority confidence.

During the AG's submission, Judge Datuk Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim interjected, asking whether there were specific constitutional provisions empowering the Sultan to remove the menteri besar.

In reply, Abdul Gani said there were no constitutional provisions to disallow rulers to remove chief ministers or menteris besar at "his (the ruler's) whims and fancies", adding that the constitution should be read as a "living legislation" to empower the ruler as such.

Abdul Gani also argued that Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution imposed a constitutional obligation on the menteri besar and executive council members to resign upon the rejection of a request for dissolution as Article 16(6) employed the word "shall", which he argued, connoted a mandatory requirement for the resignations.

"The only honourable thing is to resign when you lose majority (confidence)," Abdul Gani said, adding that if the menteri besar failed to resign, the latter would be deemed to have resigned.

The AG also sought to defend Sultan Azlan Shah's actions, arguing that the Sultan had duly considered all circumstances before deciding that Nizar had lost the confidence of the majority of the assembly.

Abdul Gani said the Sultan had royal prerogative to decide whether to dissolve the assembly and to appoint the menteri besar, as provided for under Perak Constitution's Article 16(6) and Article 16(2) respectively.

"Let's be clear. The Sultan is a non-party to all this. He stands above political causes and everybody else.

"From the facts (of the matter), His Royal Highness has clearly performed his function in the most honourable way in accordance with the Perak Constitution," Abdul Gani said.

Earlier today during cross-examination by Nizar's counsel Ranjit Singh, Nizar denied a suggestion by Zambry's counsel Datuk Cecil Abraham on Monday that he had refused to resign after the Sultan declined the request for dissolution.

Nizar maintained that there had not been a motion of no confidence moved against him in the assembly and denied that he had refused to resign pursuant to Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution.

The Kuala Lumpur High Court will tomorrow resume to hear submissions from Nizar and Zambry's counsel.

Met after the proceedings, Nizar said it would be "ideal" if the court took ample time to hear submissions and make its decision in his suit against Zambry despite the apparent urgency of the impending state assembly sitting tomorrow.