Against the Opposition Parties
The BOSS of High Court Judge Azahar Mohamed
Profile of the Head of the Malaysian Judiciary:
Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi:
(In the Malaysian Judiciary website Tun Zaki Azmi 's Profile Description is a HALF-TRUTH. In describing himself, he OMITTED his deep and long involvement in UMNO. Read here)
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.
He has only served the judiciary for LESS than 5 years in total before becoming the Chief Justice, an unprecedented leap-frogging to the top post in the Judiciary with help of the UMNO-led Government.
Asia Sentinel reported on 7 December, 2007 "..As UMNO’s legal man, Tan Sri ( now Tun) Zaki Azmi was involved with the UMNO's myriad scandalous financial misadventures that were bailed out by the government in the heydays of former Prime Minister Mahathir’s crony-capitalism during the last Asian financial crisis." (Read here for more on background of Tun Zaki Azmi, Chief Justice of Malaya)
Read here for more in Malaysiakini
The Ipoh High Court today struck out with costs the suit by Perak Pakatan Rakyat legislative assembly speaker V Sivakumar against BN speaker R Ganesan, seeking damages for assault and battery and wrongful detention, as well as aggravated damages.
(Note: Judge Azahar Mohamed was appointed Judicial Commissioner on 1 August 2004. and as High Court Judge on 21 December 2004.)
Selective Application of the Law in the Perak Constitutional Crisis by the Court(Read here article by Kim Quek on the Judge Azhar 's ruling)
Judge Azahar Mohamed said 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".
He said any matter arising with regard to the dismissal or appointment of the speaker at the assembly sitting should be examined, discussed and resolved in the assembly and not in court.
Azahar said in his judgment which he read out in court:
"The Perak Legislative Assembly has an exclusive jurisdiction over the matter.The judge Azahar said he therefore had no other choice but to dismiss the plaintiff's application with costs.
To me as far as this court is concerned, the decision of the legislative assembly on May 7, 2009 to remove the plaintiff as speaker and to appoint the defendant was conclusive and had been fairly determined by the state assembly on May 7, 2009.
"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," Azahar said in his judgment which he read out in court."
Sivakumar in his writ of summons filed through Messrs Chan & Associates at the High Court registrar's office here on May 15, had also applied for an injunction to prevent the defendant or his workers or agents from denying him entry into the assembly, or to prevent or restrict him in whatever manner from holding the post or from carrying put his duties as the legitimate assembly speaker.
Sivakumar had also applied for an injunction to prevent any further abuse, attack or assault by the defendant or his workers or agents.
In is statement of claims, Sivakumar stated that he was still the Tronoh assemblyman and Perak legislative assembly speaker.
He claimed that the defendant was not elected as an assemblyman and hence his presence at any assembly sitting was an insult to the House.
Dragged and Ejected from the House
Sivakumar also claimed that about 2pm on May 7, while he was chairing the assembly sitting at the Perak Darul Ridzuan building as the legitimate speaker, the defendant's workers or agents had forcefully held, then dragged and ejected him from the assembly hall on the defendant's order.
(Image courtesy of Malaysiakini)
Speaker Sivakumar forcefully dragged out of his chair in the Perak State
Assembly by the police in plain clothes
He claimed that in his forced absence, the defendant had illegally assumed the post of speaker, sat on the speaker's chair and wore the speaker's robe.
Sivakumar was represented by lawyers Chan Kok Keong and Leong Cheok Keng, and Ganesan by Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin who was assisted by Hafarizam Harun, Abu Bakar As Sidek, Cheng Mai, Badrulhishah Abdul Wahab, Faizul Hilmy Ahmad Zamri and Syed Faisal Syed Abdullah.
RELATED ARTICLE
Judge Azahar Mohamed Slapped His Own Face
Read here for more in Malaysiakini
THE DOUBLE STANDARDS IN AZAHAR'S JUDGEMENT
A tragic yet hilarious court proceeding took place in the Ipoh High Court on Sept 8 when the judge blatantly contradicted himself in dismissing a suit brought by Perak's Pakatan Rakyat speaker against the state's Barisan Nasional speaker (yes, two speakers in the Perak assembly).
Judge Azahar Mohamed rejected V Sivakumar's suit to seek damages from R Ganesan for assault and false imprisonment during the chaotic and violent state assembly sitting on May 7.
He said the court had no jurisdiction to hear the case due to Federal Constitution Article 72 stipulating that "the validity of any proceeding in any state assembly CANNOT be questioned in any court".
And yet in the same breath he declared that "the decision of the legislative assembly to remove the plaintiff as speaker and to appoint the defendant was conclusive and had been fairly determined by the state assembly on May 7, 2009."
Now, the crux of the entire contention between the two speakers is: Who is on the right side of law in the violent tussle for the speaker's chair on May 7?
JUDGE AZAHAR'S INCOMPETENCE OR UNDER INSTRUCTION FROM HIS BOSS
By declaring Ganesan as the rightful speaker, Judge Azahar is in fact making a LEGAL judgment. Is that not a breach of Article 72?
How come he has no jurisdiction to hear Sivakumar's grievances but has jurisdiction to judge Ganesan as legal speaker?
Is that not a contradiction of the highest order?
Apart from this atrocious double standard applied by the judge, the main flaw of the judgment is the INABILITY to differentiate between assembly proceeding and criminal behaviour.
What Sivakumar is seeking is redress for the unlawful physical violence inflicted on him.
And Article 72 covers only businesses conducted in the assembly - not unlawful and criminal act.
Judge Azahar has therefore WRONGLY used Article 72 to come to his judgment.To make it very clear that this is the case, I will quote in full the relevant clauses in Article 72 (Clauses 1 & 2) and explain the reasons why.
- Clause 1: The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.
- Clause 2: No body shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.
Note the operative words "proceedings" in Clause 1 and "anything said or any vote given" in Clause 2. It is abundantly clear what Article 72 refers to are the speeches and resolutions made in the assembly, NOT any criminal or unlawful act.
Tragedy and comedy
But what happened on May 7 was complete pandemonium and chaos in the assembly hall. There was no chance to conduct any business at all, least of all any resolution passed. In fact, the only business done on that day was the address by the Perak Regent Raja Nazrin Shah.
And how was Sivakumar "replaced" by Ganesan during that pandemonium?
While Sivakumar was sitting in the speaker's chair, hordes of police personnel entered the assembly hall, allegedly on Ganesan's order, and physically lifted, carried, dragged and moved speaker Sivakumar into a room where he was forcibly detained until the assembly sitting was over.
And as soon as Sivakumar was removed from the hall, police personnel escorted Ganesan into the hall and ushered him to the speakers chair, with police personnel making a line to stand guard in front of Ganesan to prevent any assemblymen from reaching the speaker's chair.
The entire tragedy-comedy was stage-managed by the police, and it is therefore more appropriate to say that while Sivakumar was elected by the assembly through a resolution, Ganesan was physically planted into the speaker's chair by the police. And that about sums up what happened on that tragic-hilarious day.
And since Judge Azahar appears to be so respectful of the constitutional principle of separation of power as demonstrated by his professed adherence to Article 72, is it not puzzling that he should have chosen to ignore completely the heinous violation of the doctrine of separation of power when hordes of police personnel invaded the assembly to physically replace one speaker with another?
Is it not another shining example of double standard in the Malaysia Boleh tradition?
After the series of judicial decisions that appear to wantonly trample the constitution and the law following the shameful power grab in Perak, the latest low represented by Azahar's decision makes us wonder how much lower our judiciary can sink into, as many more judicial decisions in the same series are still pending.A Clever, Conveniently Contradictory and Convoluted Judgment
by
Martin Jalleh
Read here for more
Excerpts
The Perak constitutional crisis has revealed a judiciary, the chief guardian of the Constitution, willing to compromise justice by ignoring the Federal Constitution and interfering in the proceedings of a state assembly.
It continues to deliver, in cases related to the Perak constitutional crisis, what former and retired Court of Appeal judge N H Chan describes as “bad” and “perverse” judgments.
Even when the judiciary chooses to interpret the Federal Constitution correctly, it does so when it is politically expedient and best suits the BN (also read as Umno).
There is no better example of this “selective application” than the recent Ipoh High Court ruling that it had NO jurisdiction to hear the proceedings of the Perak legislative assembly.
Dumb High Court Judge Than This One !
Azahar Mohamed
High Court Judge
Ipoh High Court Judge Azahar Mohamed ruled 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. He said any matter arising with regard to the dismissal or appointment of the speaker at the assembly sitting should be examined, discussed and resolved in the assembly and NOT in court.
Alas, if only his colleagues in the Ipoh High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court who made decisions contrary to this, were as equally enlightened.
Just after declaring that the court “has no jurisdiction on the validity of the assembly proceedings and only the legislative assembly can decide on the legality of the two speakers", Justice Azahar added that “the decision of the legislative assembly on May 7, 2009 to remove the plaintiff as speaker and to appoint the defendant was conclusive and had been fairly determined by the state assembly on May 7, 2009”!
The judge conveniently contradicted himself.
What was on the surface a bold ruling (a brave departure from the erroneous decisions of his colleagues) was in reality convoluted bias – a conclusion most unfair to Speaker Sivakumar.
Azahar was making a LEGAL JUDGMENT . He was interfering in the legislative proceedings by inferring that Ganesan was the rightful speaker. The judge was guilty of breaching Article 72!
Confusing Contradiction
The judge’s portrayed bold front followed by his blatant and befuddling contradiction left Speaker Sivakumar bewildered:
"I had filed the two court cases against Zambry and his six executive councillors, and another against the three frogs (independent assemblypersons who left Pakatan to support BN which saw the collapse of the Pakatan state government in February this year).
“On both occasions, I had cited Article 72 of the Federal constitution to argue my case to which their defence lawyers had objected, and the courts ruled in their favour. Now the same article is used against me and the court has recognised the immunity of assembly proceedings from court jurisdiction. I'm very confused by the court's decision” (Malaysiakini).
Well-known and respected Malaysiakini columnist Kim Quek offers an interesting perspective to the judicial circus of the Ipoh High Court. He says that
“(a)part from this atrocious double standard applied by the judge, the main flaw of the judgment is the inability to differentiate between assembly proceeding and criminal behaviour.”Kim Quek rightly concludes that from the operative words "proceedings" in Clause 1 (of the Article) and
“What Sivakumar is seeking is redress for the unlawful physical violence inflicted on him. And Article 72 covers only businesses conducted in the assembly - not unlawful and criminal act.”
"..anything said or any vote given" in Clause 2, it is abundantly clear what Article 72 refers to are the speeches and resolutions made in the assembly, not any criminal or unlawful act.It is very evident that Justice Azahar had made use of Article 72 to strike out Sivakumar’s suit and as justification to declare Ganeson the rightful MB.
“But what happened on May 7 was complete pandemonium and chaos in the assembly hall. There was no chance to conduct any business at all, least of all any resolution passed.
In fact, the only business done on that day was the address by the Perak Regent Raja Nazrin Shah…Judge Azahar has therefore wrongly used Article 72 to come to his judgment.”
If the judge was truly convinced and committed to the adherence of Article 72 he would NOT have legitimized the position of Ganesan – for the manner by which the latter was installed Speaker was a clear violation of the doctrine of separation of power.
A horde of policemen had trespassed into the State Assembly. They had forcibly dragged out Speaker Sivakumar, an officer of the legislature, and detained him against his will. They replaced him with Ganeson who was smuggled into the Perak State Assembly by the illegitimate MB Zambry and facilitated by the police.
As an Umno leader would later comment in great disgust: “It was high-handedness at its foulest”.
Judges like Azahar Mohamed have allowed their courts (supposed portals of justice) to be turned into a playground of political expediency and the perversion of the rule of law.
The judicial circus continues and Chief Justice Zaki Tun Azmi appears to be cheering them on!
5 comments:
Judge Azhar,
If the Perak issue has no relation to the high court, than the Perak State Assembly can decide who is the rightful speaker, then in the actual scenario, Who is this one legged female frog Hee, she is only the Deputy Speaker, and will only have the authority to executive in the absent of Sivakumar. So the appointment of Ganesan is ILLEGAL and not according to the Perak State Assembly constitution, if the court cannot remove him now, All rakyat Perak, we will stand up and demostrate to kick the stupid Speaker out of the state assembly, Mamak Zambry continues to claim the [people is accepting him, in actual case don't be mislead by his claims, it will only be true if he call for the DUN to be dissolve and if BN wins, I will cow towed to him and salute, temporary i believe at least 60% fo the Perak rakayats hates the MB and his current team.
Whatever the Peak Sultan had decided and done, whatever the Courts had decided and made their rulings, where do all these lead to? So who's the legitimate State Government? Anyone can claim what they want to be. And the clearest simple solution is obvious. What's so impossible for the whole Assembly to be dissolved and new elections be called for the Perak voters to determine their choice? Has it come to a stage where we do not even know for a certainty WHO has the final word and authority to call for a dissolution in this present confusing situation? Or are we saying Perak is a State in the Federation without a recognised Government? Recognised by whom? The Monarchy? The Courts? The Rakyat? The Constitution?
malsia1206
NO , not 60 BUT more ...more...MORE !!
Here's my take.
1. The Perak Sultan appointed the new Menteri Beasr which was then done because he believes that was meant to be the correct decision under the State Constittion. So this new MB leads the Barisan to form the State Government.
2. The Courts have yet to determine this issue at the final Appellate forum. So any decision made is still not the final word. Meaning anyone can claim to be the legitimate State Government.
3. The rakyat for sure knows which Government they want. We all know it. But the rakyat is deprived at this present time to determine their choice simpley because some thought there is already a proper Government in place. Which does not seem to be so.
4. And the Federal Constitution? Screw the Constitution. Who cares what it says? All those famous Articles are meaningless. Past incidents lent credence to this impression.
malsia1206
fighting a losing battle laa !
Post a Comment