Posted on

Four reasons for controversial ‘Allah’ ruling

Malaysian Insider
January 17, 2010
By Debra Chong

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 17 — High Court judge Datuk Lau Bee Lan’s controversial ‘Allah’ ruling that rocked the nation over who had rights to the term cited that the Home Minister and government’s actions had been illegal, unconstitutional, irrational and had failed to satisfy that it was a threat to national security.

She also wrote about the apparent conflict in the matter between the Federal Constitution and the various state enactments apart from claims by Muslim groups that the matter cannot be taken to a civil court.

The judge released the written grounds of her Dec 31 judgment late on Friday while the increasingly acrimonious public debate over who has the right to use the word “Allah” continues to rage on.

The Malaysian Insider obtained a copy of her 57-page judgment where the judge lays out the reasons and the laws behind her oral pronouncement.

In laying out her judgment, Justice Lau ruled that the Home Minister and the Government of Malaysia, who were named as 1st and 2nd Respondents respectively, has the discretion under Section 12 of the Printing Presses and Publications Act to issue or revoke a permit to the Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur Reverend Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam (the Applicant) to publish the Church’s newspaper, Herald — The Catholic Weekly.

But, she stressed, the respondents had made decisions that were illegal, unconstitutional and irrational when they barred the Catholic newspaper from publishing the word “Allah” in its Bahasa Malaysia section. Continue reading “Four reasons for controversial ‘Allah’ ruling”

Posted on

Pornthip did not leak info

Inquest adjourned 4half hour 4karpal 2submit precedents on law of contempt
01/15/2010 11:23 AM

Razak apologised but Karpal said apology only go to mitigation n court must commit Razak 4contempt Karpal said Razak’s apology insincere
01/15/2010 10:58 AM

Karpal said in insulting another counsel n all Malaysians in wheelchair Razak had committed contempt in the face of the court
01/15/2010 10:49 AM

Blowup in ct over Macc counsel Razak’s offensive insult agnst Karpal when saying: I can sit down but Karpal cannot stand up.
01/15/2010 10:46 AM
Continue reading “Pornthip did not leak info”

Posted on

MACC applied to expunge torture testimony from TBH Inquest at PJ High Court

@limkitsiang

01:16 PM
Stay of execution not granted parties instructed 2proceed

01:14 PM
Lawyers argue whether lawful 4stay of execution in revisionary applns gobind objects n says Thai pathologist Porntip testifying Monday

01:11 PM
High ct judge upheld Coroner’s ruling as there is nothing erroneus. MACC lawyer applied 4stay of decision

12:53 PM
Gobind-My client TBH is dead He is not here 2give me instructions We want 2produce testimony 2submit that MACC witnesses cannot be believed

12:45 PM
in any physical assault of persons in MACCHqrs 14th floor
Continue reading “MACC applied to expunge torture testimony from TBH Inquest at PJ High Court”

Posted on

The Court of Appeal’s “outline of reasons” in Anwar Ibrahim v P P – a critique

By NH Chan

I must apologize for the delay in giving this critique. The Court of Appeal gave its decision on July 1. I received the “outline of reasons” from Ngan Siong Hing only last Friday, 17 July 2009. Without him supplying me with a copy of the judgment of the Court of Appeal I would not be able to write this critique. Also as I do not have access to a law library I depend a lot on his generosity to get the legal material that I need to write my essays for ordinary people to understand what the judges are talking about. This is to enable the common people of this country to judge the judges for themselves.

The whole case can be understood just by readings 418A(l) and (2) and s376(l) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Power corrupts

David Pannick in his book Judges, OUP, 1987, wrote, p 76:

In all societies throughout history, judges have occasionally been adversely affected by their power. An early example occurs in the biblical story of Daniel and Susanna. Two elders of the community were appointed to serve as judges. They saw Susanna walking in her husband’s garden ‘and they were obsessed with lust for her’. When she resisted their advances they falsely accused her of infidelity to her husband. ‘As they were elders of the people and judges, the assembly believed them and condemned her to death.’ A young man named Daniel protested that an enquiry should be made into the judges’ allegations. He accused them of giving ‘unjust decisions, condemning the innocent and acquitting the guilty’. Under his careful cross-examination, the judges were proved to be liars: Daniel and Susanna in The Apocrypha.

The English Bench has had its fair share of bad judges. . . .In the seventeenth century, the Bench ‘was cursed by a succession of ruffians in ermine [most notably Jeffreys and Scroggs (Sir William)], who, for the sake of court [royal] favour, violated the principles of law, the precepts of religion, and the dictates of humanity’: John Lord Campbell, Lives of the Lord Chancellors (5th edn, 1868), vol 4, p 416.

The misuse of power from whatever quarter it may come

In The Family Story, Butterworths, 1981, Lord Denning said, p 179:
Continue reading “The Court of Appeal’s “outline of reasons” in Anwar Ibrahim v P P – a critique”

Posted on

Part 2 – Gobbledegook and regurgitation in the written judgments of the Court of Appeal in Zambry v Nizar: Postscript – Zainun Ali JCA’s judgment

By NH Chan

Postscript

On Tuesday, July 7 2009 I posted an article under the above title on the web with various news portals. At that time I only have the written judgments of two of the judges Raus Sharif and Ahmad Maarop JJCA. I have just received the third judgment that of Zainun Ali JCA from Mr. Edmund Bon of loyarburok.com through Mr. Ngan Siong Hing of Ipoh for which I am most grateful. Below is my critique of the written judgment of Zainun Ali JCA.

The points that really matter

As I have said it before in the first part of this article, there are only two points that really matter in the appeal of the case in question. They involve the reading of two clauses in Article 16 of the Perak Constitution and an understanding of what the clauses mean. A very experienced judge, the late Lord Justice Salmon in a talk which he gave to young members of the English Bar (Some Thoughts on the Traditions of the English Bar) said:

…..remember this, in few cases, however complex, is there usually more than one point that matters. Very seldom are there more than two and never, well hardly ever, more than three. Discover the points that really matter. Stick to them and discard the rest.

Actually, Salmon U was revealing to budding advocates the mind of a judge. The young advocates are informed, before they embark on their career, that a judge makes his decision by discovering the point that really matters or, exceptionally, the points that really matter. This revelation should place aspiring advocates on the right direction to becoming good advocates.

Continue reading “Part 2 – Gobbledegook and regurgitation in the written judgments of the Court of Appeal in Zambry v Nizar: Postscript – Zainun Ali JCA’s judgment”

Posted on

Gobbledegook and regurgitation galore in the two written judgments of the Court of Appeal in Zambry v Nizar Jamaluddin

By NHChan

Prologue

I shall start with an aside on the dictionary definition of the two words which feature in the title of this article.

Gobbledegook means unintelligible language.

Regurgitate means repeat information without understanding it. Regurgitation is the noun.

After you have read the article you should have an inkling of what I am trying to suggest with the words. You can then judge for yourself.

There are only two points that really matter in this appeal: Clauses (2)(a) and (6) of Article 16

Let us see if ordinary people like us can understand Clauses (2)(a) and (6) of Article 16 of the Constitution of Perak better than the judges of this Court of Appeal.

There are only two points that really matter in the appeal. They are Clauses (2)(a) and (6) of Article 16 and they read:

(2) (a) His Royal Highness shall first appoint as Menteri Besar to preside over the Executive Council a member of the Legislative Assembly who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly;

Continue reading “Gobbledegook and regurgitation galore in the two written judgments of the Court of Appeal in Zambry v Nizar Jamaluddin”

Posted on

The regurgitation of not administering justice according to law in the written judgment of Nik Hashim FCJ in Jamaluddin & ors v Sivakumar

Flashback

To refresh your memory, I refer to the report in the New Straits Times of Friday, April 10, 2009:

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has declared that three assemblymen who quit their parties are still members of the Perak state legislature.
This follows an unanimous ruling by a five-men bench yesterday which ruled that “The Election Commission is the rightfulll entity to establish if there was a casual vacancy in the Perak state legislature,” said Federal Court judge Tan Sri Alauddin Mohd Sheriff.
Sitting with him were Datuk Arifin Zakaria, Datuk Nik Hashim Nik Abdul Rahman, Datuk Sen S Augustine Paul and Datuk James Foong.
Last month, Party Keadilan Rakyat’s Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Bebrang) and Mohd Osman Jailu (Changkat Jering), together with DAP’s Hew Yit Foong (Jelapang), filed an urgent application for the Federal Court to decide their matter.
The three wanted a declaration whether it was the Election Commissioner or the Perak Speaker (V Sivakumar) had the final say in determining a vacancy. In February, Sivakumar, using resignation letters signed by the three, had declared the seats vacant.
He informed the Election Commission, but the commission refused to hold by-elections on the ground that there was ambiguity over whether the assemblymen had resigned voluntarily.

Following this newspaper report, I wrote an article which was posted on several portals on the Internet titled “When justice is not administered according to law“. This is what I said: Continue reading “The regurgitation of not administering justice according to law in the written judgment of Nik Hashim FCJ in Jamaluddin & ors v Sivakumar”

Posted on

Congrats Zaki for being conferred a “Tun” but where is Court of Appeal judgment in Nizar vs Zambry case?

Congrats to Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi for being conferred a “Tun” on the occasion of the Yang di Pertuan Agong’s birthday on Saturday.

But where is the Court of Appeal judgment in the Nizar vs Zambry case after its five-minute shotgun unanimous decision 18 days ago overturning the landmark decision of Justice Datuk Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim of Kuala Lumpur High Court by declaring Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir (self-claimed 3-in-1 Mandela, Gandhi, King) as the lawful Perak Mentri Besar?

Court of Appeal judge Datuk Md Raus Sharif had promised on May 22 that the written judgment would be made available in a week when Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin’s counsel Sulaiman Abdullah gave notice of leave application to the Federal Court to appeal, but it is now 18 days since the Court of Appeal decision.
Continue reading “Congrats Zaki for being conferred a “Tun” but where is Court of Appeal judgment in Nizar vs Zambry case?”

Posted on

Do take the trouble to understand before you find fault with the judges of the Court of Appeal

by N H Chan

Before you go about judging the judges of the Court of Appeal on their five minute oral decision which they handed down on Friday, May 22, 2009, please bear in mind the wise words of the most liberal of American judges, judge Learned Hand who once wrote – The Spirit of Liberty, p 110:

… while it is proper that the people should find fault when the judges fail, it is only reasonable that they should recognise the difficulties. … Let them be severely brought to book, when they go wrong, but by those who will take the trouble to understand.

I shall now try to help you take the trouble to understand the oral findings of the Court of Appeal. First of all we will look at what the New Straits Times, Saturday. May 23, 2009 has to say:

PUTRAJAYA. … In allowing the appeal by Datuk Seri Zambry Abdul Kadir that he was constitutionally appointed as menteri besar by the sultan on Feb 6, Court of Appeal judge Datuk Md Raus Sharif said there was no clear provision in the state Constitution that a vote of no confidence against Nizar must be taken in the assembly.

Continue reading “Do take the trouble to understand before you find fault with the judges of the Court of Appeal”

Posted on

5-minute finding (not judgment) of Ct of Appeal shot-gun session declaring Zambry lawful Perak MB – hydra-headed monster claims another victim

The hydra-headed monster of the Perak crisis has claimed another victim with the 5-minute finding (and not judgment) of Court of Appeal shot-gun session declaring Zambry lawful Perak Mentri Besar.

All who packed into the Court of Appeal in the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya to hear its judgment in the Nizar vs Zambry appeal could not believe that the whole shot-gun session was over in five minutes of delivery, not of a judgment, but findings of the Court of Appeal.

There was no reasoned grounds of judgment but mere findings of the Court of Appeal in an unanimous decision, i.e. 3 – 0.

As Professor Shad Faruqui had presciently written in his weekly newspaper column, the Perak crisis has become “a hydra-headed monster that cannot be eliminated by ding-dong judicial decisions”, and today, the hydra-headed monster has claimed another victim with the five-minute finding (not judgment) of the Court of Appeal shot-gun session declaring Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir as the lawful Perak Mentri Besar.
Continue reading “5-minute finding (not judgment) of Ct of Appeal shot-gun session declaring Zambry lawful Perak MB – hydra-headed monster claims another victim”

Posted on

Why is Zambry getting ‘special treatment’?

(When I spoke at the public forum “From May 13 to 1Malaysia – The Future of Malaysian Nation Building” at the Petaling Jaya Civic Centre on Wednesday, 13th May 2009, I had posed two questions, viz:

1. Why the Court of Appeal could fast-track to hear within three hours Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir’s application for “stay” of Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim’s landmark judgment delivered on 11th May that Nizar was the lawful Perak Mentri Besar and grant it in another hour; while it was snail-pace in needing five days to hear Datuk Seri Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin’s application to discharge Zambry’s “stay”; and

2. Whether Malaysians can expect justice in cases involving top Umno leaders when there is an Umno Chief Justice, Tan Sri Zaki Azmi?

This proved to be an understatement, as last Friday, it was announced that Nizar’s application to set aside the stay order, filed on 13th May, was postponed from May 18 to May 21 – the hearing date for Zambry’s appeal.

Zambry required less than three hours after filing his application to get a single-judge Court of Appeal to hear his “stay” request, while Nazry requires eight (from the earlier five) days to get his application to discharge the “stay” order heard.

Is this justice.

No wonder Leong Cheok Keng, Nizar’s solicitors, raised a very pertinent question in his six-point statement below, framed by Malaysiakini as “Why is Zambry getting ‘special treatment’?”: Continue reading “Why is Zambry getting ‘special treatment’?”

Posted on

Najib improperly intefering with Court of Appeal hearing on Nizar vs Zambry case

It is most improper and irresponsible for the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak to try to influence the Court of Appeal hearing on Thursday on the Nizar-Zambry case, undermining judicial independence and integrity.

This is the first time in my memory in the past 43 years that a Prime Minister had made a public pronouncement on a matter which is the very subject of litigation before an appellate court, as if the Executive is sending out a clear, unmistakable and even threatening message to the Judiciary of the executive interests in a case pending before the Appellate court.

And if such impropriety had not happened in the past 43 years, it would not have happened in the first nine years of the nation’s independence, as Bapa Malaysia and the first Prime Minister, Tengku Abdul Rahman would have been very careful and meticulous in ensuring that there could not be any speck of suspicion that the Executive was interfering with the judiciary.

Hasn’t Najib heard the doctrine of the separation of powers among the executive, legislature and judiciary and the principle of the independence of the judiciary and the need for the Executive not only to respect, but also to be seen to respect, the integrity of the judiciary?

None of the previous five Prime Ministers had gone so far as to openly dictate to the judiciary how to it should adjudicate cases involving the Executive – despite the judicial darkness of the past two decades.

Why is Najib prepared to commit such a flagrant and blatant act of Executive disrespect and contempt for the Judiciary in such public and international manner?
Continue reading “Najib improperly intefering with Court of Appeal hearing on Nizar vs Zambry case”

Posted on

Even when you do the right thing, it is still wrong

By NHChan

The other day a friend asked me this question: How is it that some of our judges do not seem to know what is the right thing to do, when all of us know what is right or wrong? I was flabbergasted by the question. It was such a simple question, yet I couldn’t give her a direct answer immediately. I just looked at her and shrugged. It was only much later when I got home that I remember what I have read (you joined the Inns of Court to read law, not study law) as a law student some half a century ago – the case of Dudley and Stephens.

We know it is wrong to kill a human being for food in order to survive although necessity is a defence to the charge of murder.

I shall recount the saga of Dudley and Stephens from Lord Denning’s at Next in the Law, Butterworths, London, 1982, pp 48, 49:
Continue reading “Even when you do the right thing, it is still wrong”

Posted on

The Texture Of Justice

By Malik Imtiaz

MAY 12 – It was to be expected. As news of the decision of the High Court in the matter of Nizar v Zambry filtered out, many were quick to give thanks and express encouragement for what they perceived as a courageous judgment.

Some even expressed the hope that the judiciary was recovering its independence.

The judgment did, after all, run counter to the entrenched positions of the Prime Minister, who was the Perak Umno liaison chief at the time power was seized in the state, the Barisan Nasional leadership and the Federal Government they have constituted, and His Royal Highness the Sultan of Perak.

As has been the case when other seemingly “courageous” or “independent” judgments were handed down by the courts had led to such expressions of encouragement, there were those who made the point that the judiciary was praised only when it gave decisions against Umno or the Barisan, and the governments they constitute.

They ask why it is the courts are “kangaroo courts” when they decide in favour of the Barisan but not when they hand down judgments against it.

In so asking, they suggest that criticism against the Judiciary and the Federal Government in this regard is unfair and self-serving as the judicial process is capable of producing judgments that run either way. To them, the good must be taken with the bad.
Continue reading “The Texture Of Justice”

Posted on

Perak in limbo with no Mentri Besar – PR lawyers to set aside Court of Appeal single-judge “stay” decision

Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir has likened himself to Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela, causing all-round derision, outrage and revulsion.

If Zambry dreams of being a Gandhi, he would not want to be an illegitimate and unlawlful Mentri Besar even for a second.

He would not lay claim to be the Perak Mentri Besar as after the Nizar vs Zambry judgment of Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim yesterday, he is doubly illegitimate as the Perak Mentri Besar.

Zambry went against everything Gandhi stood for in announcing that he would again “gate-crash” the Perak State Secretariat building tomorrow to illegitimately re-occupy the office of Mentri Besar!

Zambry was defaming the memory of Gandhi in suggesting that the great Indian moralist would have approved Zambry for being a doubly illegitimate MB.

The most astounding single-judge Court of Appeal decision to grant stay of the Abdul Aziz declaration does not in any way salvage Zambry’s position as a doubly illegitimate MB.

Abdul Aziz declared Zambry as an unlawful and illegitimate MB and Nizar the lawful and legitimate MB.
Continue reading “Perak in limbo with no Mentri Besar – PR lawyers to set aside Court of Appeal single-judge “stay” decision”

Posted on

My first twittering day

This is the twitter updates from KL High Court in Nizar vs Zambry case. From 3 – 4pm

# great judgment nizar will seek audience with sultan for dissolution

# judge rejects stay appln

# zambry counsel applying for stay of declaration

# judge declares nizar lawful mb

# judge – mb can only be dismissed by no confidence motion in assembly

# judge – assembly never had no confidence motion, material

# judge – mb can request dissolution without having lost majoritya

# judge upholds stephen ningkan judgment

# judge rejects ag’s ‘deeming’ argument – no ambiguity in constitution

# judge says perak constitution does not contemplate mb dismissal by sultan

# judge says once mb appointed by sultan, mb is answerable to assembly

# kl high court judge delivering judgment so far so good keep fingers crossed

# Will try to tweet the High Court decision later using my handphone. (1pm)

5.30 pm – Deborah Loh of TheNutGraph has given the following report of the historic High Court judgment by Justice Datuk Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim: – Continue reading “My first twittering day”

Posted on

Wong Chin Huat’s arrest – would Najib’s police detain Mahatma Gandhi for his civil disobedience campaign if the “Great-Souled” Indian is alive in Malaysia today?

Chin Huat at Police Lockup in Jalan Duta Court with Kit Siang
Picture taken at Jalan Duta court lock-up, where Chin Huat was held awaiting remand hearing.

Civil society activist and poll reform group Bersih spokesperson Wong Chin Huat told me at the Jalan Duta Courts Complex lockup that he had been wearing black for 89 days to protest the unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak since Feb. 5, 2009, but he was compelled to wear the compulsory orange police lock-up uniform on the 90th day.

He asked like-minded, justice and democracy-loving Malaysians to join in the protest against the undemocratic and illegal “coup d’etat” in Perak by wearing black, particularly tomorrow.

This is because tomorrow is the 91st day of the unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak, when the usurper and illegitimate Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir is convening an illegal meeting of the Perak State Assembly to secure legitimacy for his totally illegitimate administration.

Chin Huat is in high and fighting spirits although he had been in police custody since 7.40 p.m yesterday when a platoon of nine police officers surprised Chin Huat outside his home in Taman Sri Sentosa, Kuala Lumpur as he was going out for dinner.
Continue reading “Wong Chin Huat’s arrest – would Najib’s police detain Mahatma Gandhi for his civil disobedience campaign if the “Great-Souled” Indian is alive in Malaysia today?”

Posted on

N.H. Chan: An inconvenient judge

by Debra Chong | The Malaysian Insider

IPOH, April 30 — Chan Nyarn Hoi lives in a modest two-storey semi-detached house in a quiet lane near the state stadium in Perak with his wife, a dog and seven large Japanese carp.

At 74 years old and with ruddy smooth cheeks under a full head of snowy white hair, few would connect him to the acerbic, no-nonsense former judge Datuk N.H. Chan, who has in the last couple of months done the unthinkable: fire away missives at judges who have trampled on the Federal Constitution in deciding issues related to the power grab in Perak. His lengthy articles have reminded Malaysians of a time gone by when towering individuals sat on the Bench and simplified the Perak constitutional crisis for the common man.

Still seething over the events that transpired in Perak and decisions of the apex court, he says that if Malaysians are upset with the state of the judiciary and think that the present crop of judges are not up to the mark, they should exercise the power of their vote to change the state of affairs in the country.

Born in Ipoh on March 27, 1935, Chan was admitted to the Bar in 1961. He was a lawyer for almost two decades before becoming a High Court judge and moving to Kuala Lumpur.

He was among the first batch of High Court judges to be elevated to the Court of Appeal, set up in 1994 to act as an intermediate court between the High Court and the apex court.
Continue reading “N.H. Chan: An inconvenient judge”

Posted on

When the highest court in the land could bring down the Government of the day

by N H Chan

The front page of the Star newspaper of Friday, 17 April 2009 carries this startlingly outrageous decision of the Federal Court. The headline proclaims “Court: Siva does not have right to suspend seven”. The report reads:

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has unanimously ruled that Perak Assembly Speaker V Sivakumar does not have the power to suspend Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abd Kadir and six state executive council members from attending the assembly.
It granted a declaration that the seven assemblymen were entitled to take part in all the assembly sittings and to carry out their duties.
Court of Appeal president Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, who chaired a five-man panel yesterday, said the Speaker’s decision to suspend the seven applicants was ultra vires (outside the law) and invalid.
… The other judges were Chief Judge of Malaya Arifin Zakaria and Federal Court Judges Nik Hashim Nik Ab. Rahman, S Augustine Paul and Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin.

This is a perverse judgement of the Federal Court. It is perverse because it is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution which says,”The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”. The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the Constitution of Malaysia. In other words the judges have refused to do justice according to law.
Continue reading “When the highest court in the land could bring down the Government of the day”

Posted on

When justice is not administered according to law

by N.H.Chan

The story unfolds with the application of three turncoat members of the Perak legislative assembly for a declaration that Speaker Sivakumar’s order, which was made in the legislative assembly, that their seats in the assembly have become vacant because they have resigned was illegal. Here is the report from the Sun newspaper, Thursday April 2 2009:

IPOH: The High Court yesterday dismissed the application by Perak State Assembly Speaker V Sivakumar to strike out an original summons brought by the three independent assemblymen, seeking a declaration that Sivakumar’s order to declare their assembly seats vacant was illegal.
Justice Datuk Balia Yusuf Wahi set April 8 to hear the suit by the assemblymen Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu (Changkat Jering), Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang) and Hee Yit Foong (Jelapang) against the speaker.
He also dismissed an application by three former Pakatan Rakyat state executive Councillors . . . and three registered voters to intervene in the case, ruling that they are not interested parties as claimed.
Sivakumar had declared the three state seats vacant based on their pre-dated resignation letters as the three assemblymen were formerly from the ruling coalition. Their resignation from their parties caused the balance of power to shift to Barisan Nasional.
Sivakumar had informed the Election Commission (EC) to call for fresh elections for these three seats but the EC declined and said the seats were not vacant. The three assemblymen then referred their suit to the High Court here for a ruling that they had not vacated their seats as declared by Sivakumar.

I don’t have to tell you how to judge the judge. You must know by now how to do it if you have read my articles in the internet. You will know he is a bad judge if he behaves unfairly to one side as against the other. It is your perception as a member of the public that matters and not what the judge thinks of himself. A judge who does not appear to be fair is useless to the judicial process. As such he is a bad judge and is therefore unfit to sit on the bench. The other essential qualification of a judge is to administer justice according to law. That said, we can now judge this judge.

Article 72, Clause (1) ofthe Federal Constitution clearly states:

Continue reading “When justice is not administered according to law”