Wednesday, September 09, 2009

Judiciary can't interfere with BN Legislative, but can with Pakatan Legislative

I’m now utterly confused by the be-wigged or be-songkok-ed wise men of the Judiciary.

In Malaysiakini Speaker vs speaker: Sivakumar's suit thrown out Judge Azahar Mohamed said in the Ipoh High Court yesterday that:

the court could not interfere with what had been decided by the Perak assemblymen at their sitting on May 7 in accordance with Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution, "which states that the validity of any proceeding in any state legislative assembly cannot be questioned in any court" ...

… and because, in his learned judgement that the Perak Legislative Assembly has an exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, the decision of the legislative assembly on May 7, 2009 to remove the plaintiff as speaker and to appoint the defendant was conclusive.

He pontificated: "To question the validity of the removal and appointment is to question the validity of the constitution. This cannot be done in virtue of Article 72."

Therefore he struck out with costs the suit by PKR legislative assembly speaker V Sivakumar against BN speaker R Ganesan

Believe it or not, I actually agree with him on the part of his ruling which raised the constitutional principle of separation of powers between the legislative and the judiciary. What he stated has been what we (virtually everyone, except UMNO people) have been saying all along … BUT


… yes BUT his judgement has (coincidentally of course) now ruled in the favour of the BN usurpers.

BECAUSE

… prior to this, the court had ruled that the Perak DUN’s suspension of BN Zambry and a number of BN ADUNs were invalid even though that was passed by the committee on rights and privileges and a subsequent proceeding of the state legislative assembly.

In that earlier court determination, on Speaker Sivakumar and the DUN's suspension of Zambry and some of his BN cohorts, the Judiciary saw it fit to march intrusively and unconstitutionally into the domain of the Legislative ... virtually an unprecedented rape of the Constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers.


But unprecedented and unconstitutional as that might have been, it became a legal precedent. The principle of stare decisis requires judges to obey this legal precedent ... but apparently not so, as the Ipoh High Court has shown yesterday.

So can you blame a comment in the MKINI news article, that the judge interpreted the Constitution correctly when it suited the BN ... BUT failed abysmally to take into consideration the earlier decision of the court made by his colleague? Thus h
e condemned the Judiciary as being nothing more than a tool to the political conveniences of the ruling UMNO elites.

Another MKINI commentator remarked sarcastically that His Lordship - apart of ignoring the (no doubt questionable) legal precedent made by his colleagues against Sivakumar when the Judiciary then had violated (or raped) the Legislative - couldn’t even identify the claim in Sivakumar’s case on an issue of battery, assault and wrongful detention from proceedings of the Assembly.



Poor assaulted and illegally detained Sivakumar has not obtained the redress he sought, but he is lucky as he hasn't suffered a similar fate to that of the principle of stare decisis, which appears to have been decapitated like a cow's head.

And it might just be opportune to recall what Groucho Max said about 'principles':

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them ... well, I have others."

5 comments:

  1. Yeah

    They make the law up as they go long. The principles of equality, precedence, equity and certainty of law have been flung out the windows of our courts.

    The principle of stare disease prevails. I think they should introduce caning and whipping for these so-called 'guardians of the law'!! They have turned Perak into a lawless State.

    dpp
    We are all of 1 race, the Human Race

    ReplyDelete
  2. UMNO laws. what constitution? aiyoo, just accept what UMNO says via the IRRELEVANT judges,ok.

    if its against PR, Article 72 applies. if it suits UMNO, Article 72 does not apply. UMNO BOLEH.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Salam 2 all..

    Please read below and stop confusing yourselves... Thank You....

    Dr Abdul Rani Kamaruddin , Pensyarah Undang-Undang UIAM menjelaskan hal tersebut agar YB Siva dan mereka yang serupa dengannya tidak lagi keliru atau sengaja nak mengelirukan diri sendiri dan orang lain.


    Ulasan Dr Abdul Rani Kamaruddin di blog : Penghuni Gua.


    PT 1 (Perintah Tetap DUN) mengatakan “maka Setiausaha Dewan hendaklah membacakan Pemasyhuran DYMM Seri Sultan Perak Darul Ridzuan memanggil mesyuarat..”.


    “PT 10 (1) mengatakan “ Penggal Dewan hendaklah diadakan pada waktu dan tempat sebagaimana yang ditetapkan oleh DYMM Seri Sultan Perak Darul Ridzuan dari semasa ke semasa melalui perisytiharan dalam Warta,


    ” Maka jika tiada perkenan Sultan, jangan nak kata sidang DUN didewan itu boleh sah, apatahlagi dibawah pokok.Dalam Artikel 72 Perlembagaan, Persekutuan kesahan suatu prosiding DUN tidak boleh dicabar diMahkamah.


    Persoalannya, pertama dan utama, adakah sidang yang dibuat itu pada mulanya sah atau keputusan yang dibuat semasa DUN bersidang? Jika DUN bersidang dengan sah (mendapat perkenan Sultan) maka Artikel 72 terpakai. Jika tidak tiada kekebalan disisi undang2 termasuk pendakwaan.selebihnya carilah sendiri.


    Dr Abdul Rani Bin Kamarudin
    PENSYARAH UNDANG-UNDANG UIAM
    Penghuni Gua : Semuga YB Siva dan yang serupa dengannya tidak keliru lagi atau cuba mengelirukan diri sendiri atau orang lain. Kita juga jangan terkeliru dengan kekeliruan yang dibuat-buat oleh mereka ini.

    And please STOP mislead the masses with your own interpretation of law.. Yours is not valid...

    ReplyDelete
  4. arin 2772,

    wanna take constitution law 101?

    bet you dont understand whats 101. you probably think its 010.

    ReplyDelete
  5. i tink it's cuntitution 101 laa !

    ReplyDelete