September 13, 2011
Haider RCI upon VK Lingam Video Findings Upheld: It is opposite a open seductiveness to concede Judicial Review
by Joseph Sipalan@www.malaysiakini.com
Sep 13, 11
11:18am
The Federal Court today unanimously ruled that a justice of law cannot examination a commentary of a Royal Commission of Inquiry in to a infamous VK Lingam video. In setting in reserve a Court of Appeal order, a three-member row found that a commissions role is merely to examine a issue as well as not to come to any decision.
But there is an additional some-more critical reason. We have been of a perspective that there is a clever process consideration that it is opposite open seductiveness to concede a commentary of a elect to be challenged in a courts, pronounced Justice Md Raus Sharif, who examination out a landmark judgment.
He forked out that a number of commissions had been set up underneath a Commission of Enquiry
Act 1950, with none to their believe that were challenged by approach of a authorised review. Raus stressed that, should a authorised examination be postulated upon a commissions findings, it would describe a work of such a body a incomprehensible exercise, as well as additionally a waste of open funds.
The total role of setting up a elect is to carry out a factual investigatio! n as wel l as to make recommendations for a betterment of a judiciary, that h! as suffe red a serious blow in terms of open confidence, he noted.
Obviously, it is not in a most appropriate interests of a law as well as a nation as a total to concede such debate as well as bad perceptions to go on but a open knowing a truth of a matter, reads a judgment.
Now that a elect has come out with a findings, it does not make any sense if such commentary have been authorised to be reviewed by a courts.
The row additionally rejected a evidence posited by Lingam as well as a other two respondents that they were adversely influenced by a royal commissions findings. The judges forked out that a commentary as well as recommendations remain only that. They acknowledged that, by saying that there was sufficient grounds to take movement opposite those referred to in a video underneath a Sedition Act 1972 as well as a Penal Code, a elect had done clever commentary that concerned a respondents.
However, a row maintained that a commissions commentary remain small findings, as well as do not without delay affect or dispossess a respondents of their authorised rights.
Thus, in VK Lingams box here, despite a commissions commentary that he had committed criminal misbehaviour, his status as an disciple as well as solicitor is intact. The actuality that he is appearing prior to us is a transparent sworn statement that his authorised rights have not been adversely affected.
Similarly, for Ahmad Fairuz Dato Sheikh Abdul Halim as well as Mohd Eusoff Chin, it is not shown to us that they have been deprived of a benefits that they had been available to enjoy before. Clearly, a commissions commentary have not influenced their authorised rights as well as (are) therefore not amenable to authorised r! eview.
Commission different from tribunal
Justice Raus, in serve explaining a judgment, pronounced a row could not a! gree quick mind h Lingams 
argument that a elect is similar to any other inferior tribunal where a decisions have been always theme to authorised review.
The various tribunals set up have been open to authorised examination as a decisions done have been authorised decisions, distinct in a box of a RCI that merely investigates as well as does not decide, Justice Raus said.
Its commentary as well as recommendations have been not binding upon anybody, not even a government, he added.
The Apex Courts preference brings to a close a long-running play surrounding a controversial video, in that a elect concerned 6 people for alleged fixing of authorised appointments.
Aside from Lingam, Eusoff as well as Ahmad Fairuz, a RCI endorsed that probes be carried out upon tycoon Vincent Tan, UMNO secretary-general as well as then Minister in a Prime Ministers Department Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor as well as former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamed. Mahathir was a only one in a group who did not find a authorised examination of a commissions findings.
No comments:
Post a Comment