I refer to the Malaysiakini report Hearing concluded, decision fixed for another date .

The confused and complicated Perak constitutional tragedy created by Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak - who is widely seen as a megalomaniac - has finally reached the federal court. The panel constituted of five judges. They heard the arguments from both sides of the divide. The decision is to be delivered at a later date.

For all intent and purpose, the apex court would have to give an interpretation to our federal constitution without any likelihood of bias. As Dicey wrote in 1885 when there was a social revolution in England which was accompanied by a constitutional revolution, ‘the sovereignty of parliament and the rule of law are cardinal features of our constitution.’ Thus the constitution is known as the ‘supreme’ law above all other codes of law.

Only on that premise is laid the foundation of the structure on which the rule of the law is established and upheld.. Zambry Abdul Kadir appealed and the court of appeal overturned and set aside the declaration issued be the high court. It ruled that Zambry was the Perak menteri besar. Hence, this appeal to the federal court.

The primary issue when interpreting the federal constitution is the independence of the judges which are the tenets and the keystone of any civilised nation. From the independence of the judges and from judgements delivered with divine prescience and perfect clarity, arises the point of certainty and justice of the law.

In this matter which is before the federal court, it first came before the high court on May 11 when Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim granted a declaration to Mohd Nizar Jamaludin that he was the legitimate menteri besar of Perak at all times

In constitutional law, a declaration once granted should not be set aside. But here in Zambry’s case, what we have is nonsense at play. There has been a call by an illegitimate government crying out for ‘more light’ and the court of appeal gave that light to Zambry.

The issue before the federal court is of constitutional importance. It revolves on the interpretation of the Perak state and the federal constitutions. It also relates to the powers of the menteri besar. Whatever decision that the court delivers, it would have a multi-disciplinary effect on the people and the nation as a whole relating to the power of an elected government to govern as opposed to an appointed government by the ruler of the state of Perak. After all, the ruler is only a symbol or a figurehead.

Herein arises the complication. The federal constitution is the supreme law of Malaysia, it is higher than any other statutory law passed by Parliament. The federal constitution is the ‘Bill of Rights’ of the people through which the people give their elected representatives the mandate to govern and to formulate policies for the proper and efficient functioning of all the other institutions of the state.

Therefore the federal court should not take an ornamental or a pedantic approach to the giving of an interpretation to the provisions of the Perak state and the federal constitutions. The court should not embark upon an expedition of its own choosing, in giving its interpretation of the constitution.

The court should give the force of life to the dead letters of the constitution as they are understood by the voting populace and the words and phrases as stipulated in Article 43(4) and 71(5) (a) which inter alia states:

‘...in the case of every state, until the dissolution of the second legislative assembly constituted in accordance with those provisions or those provisions so modified’ as provided therein or of the federal constitution. In the case of the Perak state assembly, it was never dissolved.

Therefore, the ruler, by established constitutional convention, has no power to order a sitting menteri besar to resign.

What we expect is that the federal court would give the simplest, most sensible and the most obvious interpretation which is most likely to be in accord with what is understood by the voting populace in their general aspirations of why they went to the ballot box to cast their votes.

As such, there should be no war between what is provided for in the constitution and the application of commonsense.

The federal court is the apex court. The constitution to all people is a supreme document upon which we found our faith upon independence. It contains the fundamental road map for the fulfilment of all the actors’ rights in our society.

As such, the judges in Nizar's appeal should not endeavour to play a game of hairsplitting and destroy the rhythm of the constitution. We expect the judges to give the simplest and most obvious interpretation. May the judges give a sound decision without fear or favour.

As Socrates said: ‘Law is reason free from passion’ so to must the five judges of the federal court be free of passion, joy and sorrow in giving the words and phrases of the constitution their obvious plain and ordinary meaning, as it is woven into the fabric of the constitution. There are no creases to be ironed out.

If the judges fail to do so, they would be destroying whatever little faith the people have in the judiciary which consist not of reliance on any special revelation or blind hope that they have for the judiciary but respect for the well laid-out reasons set before the federal court by Nizar’s solicitors.

The voting populace will not be swayed by anything less than a decision delivered with divine prescience and perfect clarity.