Court in Session: With Our Low-Calibre Judges Wearing UMNO/BN Badges, It CAN be True, as Shown in Past Rulings

To understand why such scenario (court proceeding below ) is plausible, read HERE (High Court Judge Azahar Mohamed's self-contradictory and half-baked ruling) , and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE

(Note: Only Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim so far showed his true worth and mettle as a judge and some one devoid of political influence, giving his judgment with clear and sound legal basis. Read here for more )

These judges are NOT what we would like to call "MALAYSIAN Judges". They are more appropriately known and regarded as "UMNO-BN Judges".

Their appointments are NOT based on competence, knowledge and experience in the law, but on their loyalty and ability to safe-guard the interest of UMNO-BN at all times.

Their rulings since the sacking of the former Lord President Salleh Abas in 1988 up till now are testimony to that fact.

The preferred political end-game for UMNO/BN is to play in the Court of Appeal and in the Federal Court because that is where (click here) UMNO's trump card is held.

• Read HERE what happened to Tun Salleh Abbas and the judges who were sacked by the UMNO-led Govt

• Read HERE How the present Chief Justice Zaki Azmi as a loyal UMNO member sky-rocketed into his present position and HERE and HERE
  

The Man Judges Fear
to Step Out of Line
in the Malaysian Judiciary Today
QUOTE: "... Prior to Tun Zaki Azmi being appointed as Chief Justice of Malaya on 21st October, 2008, he was an UMNO member and served as a Legal Advisor to UMNO. His previous position in UMNO was as the Chairman of UMNO's Disciplinary Committee. His ties to UMNO is too DEEP for him to ensure the independence of the judiciary especially in cases involving the interest of UMNO or UMNO cronies..."Read here
(In the Malaysian Judiciary website Tun Zaki Azmi 's Profile Description is a HALF-TRUTH. In describing himself, he OMITTED his deep and long association and involvement in UMNO. Read here)

UPDATE: 1.30 pm 10 Sept 2009

The High Court here today struck out Elegant Advisory Sdn Bhd’s RM218-million suit against Umno over alleged non-payment for items the company claimed to have supplied during a general election.

The court said the application was without basis and did not follow the Contracts Act 1950.

In its writ of summons, Elegant Advisory said it was engaged in the supply of election merchandise, transportation and publications and that it had supplied Umno with these items for the 11th general election in 2004.

The company claimed that it had sent Umno invoices for a sum of RM218,013,475 and that the party had failed to pay up. Read here for more

--- END OF UPDATE ----

Disclaimer: The following article is a work of fiction and any resemblance to people still living, already dead, or about to die is purely coincidental. -Raja Petra Kamarudin

Bangun! The court’s in session

Read here for more article in Malaysia-Today

Transcript from the court's Proceedings

Bangun!

All rise. The judge walks in and takes his seat.

Duduk!

All sit down again.

Case number 1651/09, the Shah Alam High Court, Public Prosecutor versus Mohd Azmir Mohd Zin, Ahmad Suhairi Zakaria, Mohd Hilmi Ni, Eyzra Ezhar Ramlz, Ibrahim Sabri and Ahmad Mahayuddhn Abd Manaf. Will all the accused please come forward and enter the dock.

The six enter the dock.

Judge: Okay. What is the charge? Please read out the charges to all the accused.

Prosecuting Counsel: Yes, your honour. You, Mohd Azmir Mohd Zin, Ahmad Suhairi Zakaria, Mohd Hilmi Ni, Eyzra Ezhar Ramlz, Ibrahim Sabri and Ahmad Mahayuddhn Abd Manaf, are accused of dragging a cow’s head after Friday prayers on…….

Judge: Hold on. What are they being charged for?

Prosecuting Counsel: Sedition, your honour.

Judge: Sedition? How come I don’t get to hear sodomy cases? I want to hear a sodomy case. Is there any sodomy involved here?

Prosecuting Counsel: No, your honour. Only sedition.

Judge: How did they commit sedition?

Prosecuting Counsel: They dragged a cow’s head to the Selangor State Secretariat building.

Judge: How can they commit sedition against a cow? Dragging a cow is not seditious.

Prosecuting Counsel: It was not a cow, your honour. It was a cow’s head.

Judge: Of course you have to drag a cow by the head. I know that. You can’t drag a cow by the tail.

Prosecuting Counsel: It was not a live cow, your honour. It was a dead cow.

Judge: These six accused dragged a dead cow?

Prosecuting Counsel: Not a dead cow, your honour. Just a cow’s head. They cut off the head and just dragged the head.

Judge: They needed six people just to drag one cow’s head?

Prosecuting Counsel: No, your honour. Only two dragged the cow’s head. In fact, they carried it by the horns. Not actually dragged it along the ground.

Judge: Then how come six are being charged if only two dragged the cow’s head? Did they take turns to drag the cow’s head?

Prosecuting Counsel: No, your honour. Two dragged the cow’s head. The other four stepped on the cow’s head and spit on it.

Judge: So this is sedition against the cow?

Prosecuting Counsel: Not sedition against the cow, your honour. They committed sedition because their act was an insult to Hindus.

Judge: Was the cow owned by a Hindu man?

Prosecuting Counsel: No, your honour. We have not yet established who owned the cow.

Judge: Did the owner of the cow make a police report?

Prosecuting Counsel: No, your honour. But many Hindus did make police reports.

Judge: But none of these Hindus owned the cow?

Prosecuting Counsel: Prosecuting Counsel: No, your honour.

Judge: Then why are they so upset?

Prosecuting Counsel: Because they feel insulted.

Judge: Aiyah! This case is getting very complicated even before the trial can start. Can’t we just charge them for sodomy instead? I want to hear a sodomy case. Judges become famous when they hear sodomy cases, not cases involving cow’s heads.

Prosecuting Counsel: We can’t, your honour. There is no sodomy involved here.

Judge: I’m sure if the police investigate properly they will find someone who has been sodomised.

Prosecuting Counsel: Well, your honour, I think Umno has been sodomised.

Judge: There you are. So there is sodomy involved. Can we amend the charges to sodomy against Umno instead?

Prosecuting Counsel: But your honour, Umno was not literally sodomised. It’s more like figure of speech sodomised. Umno was sodomised politically.

Judge: Anwar Ibrahim did not literally sodomise anyone either. He sort of politically sodomised Dr Mahathir Mohamad. But that did not stop the government from charging him and finding him guilty of sodomy. Why can’t these six be charged for sodomy, for politically sodomising Umno? I want to hear a sodomy case.

Prosecuting Counsel: For this particular case we can’t, your honour. But maybe we can give you another sodomy case to hear. Tiong King Sing just sodomised Ong Tee Keat by revealing the details of the RM10 million cash donation. It is now public knowledge and there is even a Statutory Declaration floating around.

Judge:Fantastic. Make sure that that case comes to my court. Where did the crime occur?

Prosecuting Counsel: In Petaling Jaya, your honour.

Judge: Ah, then that comes under my court’s jurisdiction. Okay, let us proceed with this sedition case then. Are there any witnesses involved? How many witnesses are going to be called and how many days will we need for this case?

Prosecuting Counsel: Initially, there were some videos of the crime.

Judge: Are the videos going to be entered as evidence? Then the accused might as well just plead guilty and save the court’s time. If there are videos then they have no defence.

Prosecuting Counsel: The videos were available, your honour. But now the MCMC has asked Malaysiakini to remove the videos under threat. So the videos are no longer available.

Judge: So the evidence no longer exists?

Prosecuting Counsel: No, your honour.

Judge: If there is no longer any evidence why waste the court’s time with a trial? Just drop the charges.

Prosecuting Counsel: We can’t, your honour. We have to make the Hindus happy by at least pretending that we are putting the six on trial and then later either drop the charges or find them not guilty due to lack of video evidence.

Judge: Why later? Why not now?

Prosecuting Counsel: We can’t, your honour. There is a by-election coming up soon in Port Dickson and there are about 20% Hindu voters there. This will make the Hindu voters very unhappy. We can only drop the charges after Umno wins the by-election. If not Umno is going to be sodomised good and proper.

Judge: Ah, if Umno loses the by-election can’t we then change the charge to sodomy since Umno was sodomised in the by-election?

Prosecuting Counsel: Umno can’t lose the by-election, your honour.

Judge: Why not?

Prosecuting Counsel: Because there are more than 5,000 postal voters in a total of only 14,000 registered voters.

Judge: I see. So the opposition is going to be sodomised instead then.

Prosecuting Counsel: Sort of, your honour.

Judge: And these six people being charged are also opposition members?

Prosecuting Counsel: They are, your honour.

Judge: I always said Anwar Ibrahim’s people are troublemakers. All opposition people are troublemakers. I have already decided to find them guilty even before the trial starts.

Prosecuting Counsel: These six are not Anwar Ibrahim’s people, your honour.

Judge: You said they are opposition supporters.

Prosecuting Counsel: They are Umno supporters, your honour.

Judge: But you said they are opposition supporters.

Prosecuting Counsel: Yes, your honour. Umno is the opposition in Selangor.