The Federal Court rulings on cases involving a Perak inherent crisis should be considered blank because of former Chief Justice Zaki Azmi's acknowledgment that he had no part in forming a row that listened them, pronounced Perak DAP.
Perak DAP chairperson Ngeh Khoo Ham pronounced that Zaki's acknowledgment that he did not empanel a five-member row that listened Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin's case was wrong in law.
Citing Malaysian Bar vs Tan Sri Dato Abdul Hamid garbage bin Omar [1989] 2 MLJ page 281, he pronounced that a Supreme Court had in 1989 ruled that a Federal Court row can usually be empaneled by a chief justice.
"By trait of this Supreme Court decision, a highest probity in a land, empaneling a Federal Court dais by any alternative chairman is not allowed.
"Therefore a Federal Court decisions in regard to a Perak crisis cases have been void," Ngeh (right) told Malaysiakini.
Only CJ can consecrate panel
In 1989, a case of a Malaysian Bar opposite former Lord President Abdul Hamid Omar, a Federal Court had ruled that usually a duke boss alone is entitled to assemble as well as empanel judges to consecrate a Supreme Court for any sitting.
"The powers of a duke boss or any chairman acting as duke boss under Section 38 as well as 39 of a (Courts of Judicature Act) have been demonstrate orthodox powers that cannot be exercised by others unless properly exercised under s 9(1) of a Act during seizure or deficiency from Malaysia or owing to any alternative means when a duke boss is unable to practice a functions of his office.
"We examination! a words 'any alternative cause' in s 9(1) to describe to earthy incapacity in a sense that a duke boss is unable to perform his functions," examination a judgment.
In an interview with Malaysiakini on Sept 12, Zaki had pronounced he had instructed his deputy, Court of Appeal boss Alauddin Md Sheriff, to hoop a Perak crisis related cases when it came up to a Federal Court.
Zaki pronounced that he did not want to be concerned in a cases as he did not wanted to be indicted of dispute of seductiveness as he had once been heavily concerned with Umno.
"I did not sit on any cases that were not usually political, but had a flavour of politics. I did not even consecrate a panel. I told my Number Two: 'You go to consecrate (form) a panel. I don't want'," pronounced Zaki.
'New CJ must right wrongs'
Ngeh, who is a senior lawyer, argued that given a decisions of a Federal Court were right away void, it was incumbent on a stream Chief Justice ! Ariffin Zakaria to consecrate a brand brand new row to listen to Nizar's case.
"Since a Perak cases have not been disposed off, you call on a present chief justice, to assemble a brand brand new panel, to examination a decisions that have been made by a progressing unlawfully convened Federal Court hearing," he said.
In a same vein, Ngeh pronounced Zaki's (left) explanation in a same talk that a probity registrar had organised for a singular Court of Appeal decider to listen to Zambry Abdul Kadir's application on May 12, 2009 had additionally lifted questions.
"How can a registrar have a powers to call on a Court of Appeal decider to listen to a case?" pronounced Ngeh, explaining that such powers distortion with a Court of Appeal president.
On May! 11, a K uala Lumpur High Court ruled in favour of Nizar's application to be spoken a bona fide Perak menteri besar.
But in less than a day, Zambry managed to obtained a stay ofexecution order from a Court of Appeal. His application was listened by a singular decider - Justice Ramly Ali - desp! ite ther e being two three-member panels conference cases that day.
This fact, along with the swiftness in that a stay was granted, has led Nizar as well as his counsel to subject a court's integrity.
Malaysians Must Know a TRUTH Perak DAP chairperson Ngeh Khoo Ham pronounced that Zaki's acknowledgment that he did not empanel a five-member row that listened Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin's case was wrong in law.
Citing Malaysian Bar vs Tan Sri Dato Abdul Hamid garbage bin Omar [1989] 2 MLJ page 281, he pronounced that a Supreme Court had in 1989 ruled that a Federal Court row can usually be empaneled by a chief justice. "By trait of this Supreme Court decision, a highest probity in a land, empaneling a Federal Court dais by any alternative chairman is not allowed.
"Therefore a Federal Court decisions in regard to a Perak crisis cases have been void," Ngeh (right) told Malaysiakini.
Only CJ can consecrate panel
In 1989, a case of a Malaysian Bar opposite former Lord President Abdul Hamid Omar, a Federal Court had ruled that usually a duke boss alone is entitled to assemble as well as empanel judges to consecrate a Supreme Court for any sitting.
"The powers of a duke boss or any chairman acting as duke boss under Section 38 as well as 39 of a (Courts of Judicature Act) have been demonstrate orthodox powers that cannot be exercised by others unless properly exercised under s 9(1) of a Act during seizure or deficiency from Malaysia or owing to any alternative means when a duke boss is unable to practice a functions of his office.
"We examination! a words 'any alternative cause' in s 9(1) to describe to earthy incapacity in a sense that a duke boss is unable to perform his functions," examination a judgment.
In an interview with Malaysiakini on Sept 12, Zaki had pronounced he had instructed his deputy, Court of Appeal boss Alauddin Md Sheriff, to hoop a Perak crisis related cases when it came up to a Federal Court.
Zaki pronounced that he did not want to be concerned in a cases as he did not wanted to be indicted of dispute of seductiveness as he had once been heavily concerned with Umno.
"I did not sit on any cases that were not usually political, but had a flavour of politics. I did not even consecrate a panel. I told my Number Two: 'You go to consecrate (form) a panel. I don't want'," pronounced Zaki.
'New CJ must right wrongs'
Ngeh, who is a senior lawyer, argued that given a decisions of a Federal Court were right away void, it was incumbent on a stream Chief Justice ! Ariffin Zakaria to consecrate a brand brand new row to listen to Nizar's case.
"Since a Perak cases have not been disposed off, you call on a present chief justice, to assemble a brand brand new panel, to examination a decisions that have been made by a progressing unlawfully convened Federal Court hearing," he said.
In a same vein, Ngeh pronounced Zaki's (left) explanation in a same talk that a probity registrar had organised for a singular Court of Appeal decider to listen to Zambry Abdul Kadir's application on May 12, 2009 had additionally lifted questions. "How can a registrar have a powers to call on a Court of Appeal decider to listen to a case?" pronounced Ngeh, explaining that such powers distortion with a Court of Appeal president.
On May! 11, a K uala Lumpur High Court ruled in favour of Nizar's application to be spoken a bona fide Perak menteri besar.
But in less than a day, Zambry managed to obtained a stay ofexecution order from a Court of Appeal. His application was listened by a singular decider - Justice Ramly Ali - desp! ite ther e being two three-member panels conference cases that day.
This fact, along with the swiftness in that a stay was granted, has led Nizar as well as his counsel to subject a court's integrity.
Courtesy of Bonology.com Politically Incorrect Buzz & Buzz
No comments:
Post a Comment