By Yow Hong Chieh
February 17, 2012
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 17 Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad pronounced currently amendments to Article 121 of a Federal Constitution usually gave a Attorney-General shortcoming to choose which justice should listen to a case.
This merely returned shortcoming to a A-G to confirm upon which cases would be attempted in a High Court as well as did not have a law debasing to politicians, he stressed.
Dr Mahathir(picture)said a have a difference arose in 1987 when a judge in Datuk Yap Peng's rapist crack of trust hearing ruled which territory 418A(1) of a Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) was unconstitutional after a open prosecutor had applied to send a box to a High Court. Section 418A(1) creatively allowed any box attempted in a rapist justice subordinate to a High Court to be eliminated to a High Court.
The Supreme Court then ruled 3-2 in foster of a hearing judge's opinion, with Tan Sri Hashim Yeop A. Sani as well as Tun Salleh Abas opposing.
"Salleh Abas, giving his minority dissenting view, said: 'I cannot see how this energy could be regarded as an intrusion upon legal energy of a court. In my view, it is conjunction a legal energy nor an intrusion of which power'.
"It was probably to have clear a situation as well as to revive a right of a A-G which he decided to embody a legislative addition to Article 121(1) when a Constitution was to be nice to explain a purpose of a Rulers in law-making," Dr Mahathir pronounced in his blog.
The Umno veteran pronounced he did not find construction from a A-G at a time as he did not consider a legislative addition to Article 121 as altering legal powers in any way.
"It is normal which whenever a law needs to be nice to facilitate a process of justice,! then it would be amended. The Constitution was drafted by mere group as well as it cannot be perfect," he noted.
"The rights as well as functions of a law have not been debasing to a politicians or a budding apportion prior to or after a amendment. This is since a legislative addition involves usually a procession in which a A-G was given back a shortcoming to send cases. It did not give a budding apportion any management to overrule a courts."
Former Chief Justice Tun Mohd Dzaiddin Abdullah pronounced upon Saturday a law became debasing to politicians after Dr Mahathir clipped its wings in a 1980s by amending Article 121 of a Constitution.
Dzaiddin had pronounced a legislative addition was unfriendly since Parliament could right away confirm what powers a law should be given, altering in a very fundamental approach a simple make up of a Federal Constitution.
Dr Mahathir's clashes over a purposes of a executive as well as law with then-Lord President Salleh had led to a latter's sacking in 1988, he also alleged.
Dr Mahathir reiterated currently which it was a Yang di-Pertuan Agong, as well as not he, who had longed for Salleh private as well as forked out which his administration department had gone by a book in dismissing a Lord President.
He remarkable which a Constitution contained a sustenance to mislay a judge following a judiciary as well as which conjunction a King nor a budding apportion could dismiss a judge themselves.
"All these procedures were followed to a letter. Two foreign judges were upon a panel. The panel decided upon Salleh's dismissal as well as not a budding apportion or a government.
"Simply since Salleh was private in suitability with a Constitution does not meant a law is debasing to a supervision or a budding minister," he said.
Dr Mahathir combined which Dzaiddin should provide examples of a former's purported interference in a courts during his time as chief justice as well as ! not only have claims.
"Perhaps Tun Dzaiddin competence be means to tell more about lobbying for high legal appointments. Malay adats have a very absolute purpose in a governance of this country," he said.
More Barisan Nasional (BN) | Pakatan Rakyat (PR) | Sociopolitics Plus |
Courtesy of Bonology.com Politically Incorrect Buzz & Buzz
No comments:
Post a Comment