Judging the Judges

Dear all, go and read an article by N.H Chan, a retired judge of the Court of Appeal on the decision of the Federal Court in the recent case of Zambry vs. Sivakumar.

In this case, Zambry has applied to the Federal Court, amongst others, a declaration that Sivakumar as the Speaker of the DUN of Perak was wrong when he (Sivakumar) suspended Zambry and other BN elected representatives.

In the article, "The Gobbledegook of Augustine Paul FCJ in the Federal Court's decison in Zambry v Sivakumar", the former Supreme Court judge wrote that the written judgement by Paul FCJ unintelligible. He used the strong word "gobbledegook" which means, "unintelligible language" to describe the written judgment.

His main contention is why the Federal Court Judges (all five of them) failed to rely on the wordings of Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution. To quote,

And that point is Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution. It reads:

The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.

All of us ordinary folk knew what the words in Article 72(1) mean. This constitutional provision is couched in simple English, without any ambiguity whatsoever, so that all of us sensible people could understand.

The words mean exactly what they say – no more, no less. No court, not even the Federal Court, can tell us the words mean something else.

If the Federal Court, which is the supreme law of the land, says that the validity of proceedings in the legislative assembly of any state shall not be question in any court, then it means no court, not even the Federal Court could question what has been done by the Speaker (rightly or wrongly). See....even I could be accused of repeating what being stated in the Federal Constitution - simply because there is no other way to explain (or interpret) the said provision!.

In other part of the article, N.H> Chan wrote,

Who is Paul FCJ to question the peremptory decree of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land?

Yet, in spite of the constitutional decree of Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution that no court shall question the validity of the proceeding in the Legislative Assembly of Perak, where speaker Sivakumar had rightly or wrongly suspended Zambry and his band of six, Paul FCJ has blatantly refused to apply the constitutional provision of Article 72(1) as it stands.

 

Towards the end, he wrote,

The duty of a judge is to ensure a fair trial. After that, the only function of a judge is to administer justice according to law.

The infamous five, with Augustine Paul FCJ among them, have blatantly refused to administer justice according to law in that they have refused to apply Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution as it stands.

 

It's a disgrace, isn't it?

Oh God, please save us.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog