Stare Decisis is a hallowed principle in the jurisprudential canon. It simply means that you respect the legal precedent established in analogous cases in the past.

                

NONE The decision handed down today by the Federal Court in the case of whether Pakatan Rakyat's Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin or Barisan Nasional's Zambry Abd Kadir is the rightful menteri besar of Perak ignored the established precedents.

The precedents were set in the Stephen Kalong Ningkan case in Sarawak in 1966 and the Pairin Kitingan case in Sabah in 1985.

In both cases, the incumbent chief minister, Sarawak's Ningkan in the first instance and Sabah's Pairin in the latter, were either removed by ruler's fiat or the appointment was challenged by a rival candidate for the post.   

The Ningkan case established as a legal principle that once  appointed, a chief minister could only be removed by a vote of no-confidence in the legislative assembly. The judge's decision in the Pairin case upheld that principle.

                                

In the Nizar vs Zambry case, High Court judge Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim ruled last May in favour of Nizar as the rightful MB but first the Court of Appeal and now the Federal Court countermanded him.

Justice Abdul Aziz was respectful of the established precedent in the case.  

Doctrinal consistency is highly valued in jurisprudential theory.

No unique facts

In jurisprudential theory, established precedents can be overthrown only if unique facts enter the vortex of discursive imperatives in which a case is decided.

There were no unique facts in the Nizar vs Zambry case.

Three state assemblypersons belonging to Nizar’s Pakatan Rakyat faction abruptly became independents, leaning towards support for the BN. Two of them were under indictment for corruption.

In the circumstances, the motives of the duo for becoming BN leaning independents could not be said to be above cavil.

The obvious resort, in conditions where there is an impasse in the legislative assembly brought on by legislators’ changed allegiance, influenced by unusual factors, would have been to that final arbiter of a polity’s distempers: the ballot box.

But no, the Court of Appeal, last May, and now the Federal Court have decided to ignore the principle of stare decisis and make the notion of judicial precedent a piece of chaff, drifting on every wind of circumstance.

It's the kind of reasoning that makes you think that the law is an ass.