Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this
From Our Readers

We refer to the Malaysiakini report MB vs MB: Nizar's 11 judges application dismissed .

The legitimately elected but illegally ousted Perak Menteri Besar, Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin, had applied for a full quorum of 11 Federal Court judges to hear his appeal. This has now been rejected.

A majority of Malaysians supported this appeal not only in the interest of justice but also because they want to see the return of confidence in the judiciary. They want the judiciary to be rescued from the doldrums and regain its former glory as a beacon of justice for all Malaysians.

The judiciary is in a shambles. Some judges have contributed to that. The executive is not without blame either. It had appointed and elevated judges who did not measure up to their oath of office to deliver justice without fear or favour. VK Lingam’s tape has completely tarnished the judiciary and according to some, beyond repair.

The Perak crisis has further damaged its tarnished reputation , as can be seen in the following instances.

On May 11, High Court Judge Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim, in a well-reasoned decision declared Nizar as the rightful menteri besar of Perak. But shockingly, in less than 24 hours, the court of appeal granted a stay via Justice Ramli Ali who was just elevated in April – the previous month.

Then in what must be considered as super-speed, 11 days later, on May 22, the appellate court overturned the sound high court decision for no apparent reason and incredibly ruled that BN’s Zambry Abdul Kadir was the legitimate MB.

In this instance, Justice Mohd Raus Sharif led a three-member court of appeal bench. Mohd Raus Sharif was subsequently elevated to the federal court which raised many eye-brows. The way Nizar’s case has proceeded has created doubts that are disturbing and damaging to the judiciary.

Malaysians are still wondering why a newly-elevated justice to the court of appeal should have heard the stay application by Zambry. No compelling reasons or justifications were disclosed for this bewildering decision. The stay order was simply granted – just like that.

This was followed by the overturning of the high court decision acknowledging Nizar as the legitimate MB by a three-member court of appeal panel headed by Raus Sharif.

There was nothing wrong with this decision even though a written judgment was not made available. But surprisingly, Raus was soon afterwards elevated to the federal court and tongues began to wag insinuating all kinds of things and running down the judiciary.

Since Nizar’s case has cast the judiciary in such a poor light prompting the public to perceive that there was biasness in these cases, it was all the more important why a 11-member federal court should have heard this case.

There is also the constitutional issue in the Perak crisis that has not been properly addressed and seriously considered thus far. The supreme law deserves to be treated with due respect and given the utmost attention by the apex court and its members.

The issues at stake are crying out for a judicial remedy involving the constitution, the rule of law, the people’s mandate, democracy and justice itself.

The chief justice could have done the judiciary a great duty in the interest of justice and public expection if he had appointed a full bench to hear this very important case. He has failed to do this, so we can with confidence conclude that there is no hope for the judiciary.

In such an eventuality, Malaysians must decide once and for all at the 13th general election whether they want this rotten system to continue or vote for a complete change.

The writer is president, Aliran.