The Nizar vs Zambry case must come to a conclusion as soon as possible. It seems to me now that no one in the judiciary is willing to preside over battle for legal rights to the Perak State Government.
The case, heard initially in High Court, moved to the Federal Court and now, the case is ordered to be heard at a High Court again.
I might be wrong, but from a layman's perspective, the controversial case will not be concluded if there are no independent judges out there who dare to preside over the case.
Since the cases are transferred from here to there in the judiciary, there could be trial-in-trial in future where lawyers of either party might disqualify the Court from hearing the case.
The circle goes on and on.
Given the complexity of the case, I can conclude that the judges might possibly be affected by what I have described in the past - Malaysian laws are lopsided.
Even before Court cases are in trial, the public has already delivered their verdict in newspapers, blogs and alternative media which the Judges read as well.
These will directly influence the judgement of the judges, if not fully control the minds of these judges.
Now, in this dilemma, I strongly encourage a Royal Commission that consists of a panel of politically independent judges to hear the case out.
The Court case involves not only the legality of the State Government but the position of the Sultan in the Constitution.
It will only be right and proper for such high profiled case to be heard in front of a Royal panel of judges endorsed by the Parliament of Malaysia and the Council of Malay Rulers.
-end-
5 comments:
A Royal Commission of Judges is not a court of law. That alone nullifies your well-meaning suggestion.
On top of that, you say "Now, in this dilemma, I strongly encourage a Royal Commission that consists of a panel of politically independent judges to hear the case out."
Who are you directing this suggestion to? The government? The powers that be? Why would they want a "panel of politically independent judges"?
Who decides who is politically independent? You? Me? Datuk Seri Najib Razak? Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim? Chief Justice?
No. The Perak cases should not have been heard before a junior Judicial Commissioner whose contract was already expired when he first heard it and only retrospectively renewed after coincidentally he passes ridiculous judgements in favor of the powers that be. After contract extended, then he recuses himself.
It should have been heard by a senior High Court judge.
If there is an appeal, then it should be heard in the Court of Appeal and finally, final appeal should be heard before a 9-men or even an 12-men quorum in the Federal Court.
Only this can reduce the chances of bias or pre-planned judgements.
(Sorry, I digressed a bit to the Perak Speaker cases but the same principle applies to the Zambry vs Nizar case)
Only then will justice be served. This is assuming that everyone is interested in justice and not just interested in their own version of "justice".
Lastly, you also said "The Court case involves not only the legality of the State Government but the position of the Sultan in the Constitution."
The position of the Sultan in the Constitution was never a issue to the aggravated party i.e MB (or is it ex?)Nizar. The A-G Chambers made it an issue.
Read it here.
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/100736
titled-Nizar: Original suit never questioned sultan's powers
Makes you wonder, why was it made an issue if it was not an issue?
I would want to make this short and simple as possible. Why is it everytime pro-PR make a comment, they uses 'anonymous' and secondly, why they always linked it to malaysiakini or that petra guy? Are they like some bible that these pro-PR adhered to that they must quote again and again and again?
Jita,\let me get it thru your thick head - because people are afraid of the ISA.
People like u all okay- sing the praise of the ruling regime. get the booty and life happine$$.
may god bless your after life
shouldn't commentators respect each other for their differences? 0.o that insult was uncalled of anonymous.
Pro BN can use established news media while pro PR could always use alternative media as point of references.
Looking at how people would chant and cry for royal commission and how statutory declaration are abused by certain parties, I wonder how effective a royal commission can be.
>>Pro BN can use established news media while pro PR could always use alternative media as point of references.
REALLY??? i thought alternative media has just been banned by the ruling junta.
And did Mr Wei made a fuss or a comment about this? no.
Post a Comment