I refer to the Malaysiakini report Court of Appeal: Zambry is MB .

The illogicality of the court of appeal judgement in the Nizar-Zambry case in favour of Zambry Abdul Kadir is so obvious that it does not require a legal mind to see that it is wrong.

The court of appeal judges lean heavily on the fact that there is no mandatory, express requirement in the state constitution that provides for a motion of no-confidence to be passed in the state assembly against the incumbent before he ceases to command the confidence of the

majority.

This is a very narrow interpretation of the constitution. The judges have conveniently ignored established parliamentary practices and conventions of Commonwealth countries which have long established that a vote taken in the House is the accepted means of showing a majority.

On the other hand, the judges rule that the fact that the incumbent has ceased to command the confidence of the majority may be ascertained through extraneous means by the sultan.

Nowhere is it expressly stated in the constitution that the sultan can establish personally whether the incumbent has lost the majority and act on it to dismiss the chief minister.

So, aside from ignoring established parliamentary practices and conventions which have the force of law, these judges have gone one step further to give the sultan powers which the constitution does not provide.

The term ‘extraneous means' is extremely wide and gives His Majesty ‘carte blanche' to act as he sees fit to determine if the incumbent has lost the majority. If the sultan chooses to base it on hearsay, who is to say that this does not come under the ‘extraneous means' provided for by the judges?

In any case, the opinion of the sultan does not matter as the constitution is clear that the chief minister does not hold office at the sultan's pleasure. The CM can only be relieved of his post by resigning or through a vote of no confidence in the assembly

However, the judges' decision has not only given the sultan the power to dismiss the CM but also the latitude to use any means he wants to form his opinion that the CM has lost the majority. In other words, the sultan now possesses the power to dismiss the CM at his pleasure and discretion, courtesy of the court of appeal judges.

This premise is inconsistent with other parts of constitution where it is expressly stated that the CM does not hold office at the sultan's pleasure. Although the sultan's choice of a replacement can be tested in the House by a vote, we must remember that it is the ruler's prerogative not to consent to an emergency session of the assembly.

Coupled with his prerogative to dissolve the assembly in the event that his appointed choice is voted down, this means remedying the matter not an easy or straightforward task.

It is clear that a travesty of justice has been committed by the court of appeal decision for the sake of political expediency. This decision has struck at the heart of our system of constitutional monarchy which limits the power of the royalty to overturn the people's democratic choice of leaders.

Umno seems willing to go to any lengths to enforce their power grab in Perak even to the extent of trampling on the constitution and the rule of law.

In the end, they must ask themselves if it is worth it as such powers given to the royalty may be used against them in future.

Here is something for Umno to chew on. If Anwar were to take 31 BN parliamentarians with him to see the King, could he get himself appointed as PM and would Najib be deemed to have resigned?