Monday, March 09, 2009

A NOVICE IPOH HIGH COURT JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER MISINTERPRETES LAWS OF MALAYSIA, INSTEAD USES UMNO LAW

Various legal experts have clearly proven that the Judicial Commissioner at the Ipoh High Court, Ridwan Ibrahim had wrongly interpreted the law when he applied to hear and decide on the cases pertaining to the current feud faced by the Pakatan Rakyat and the Barisan Nasional parties.

The JC had barred the Perak Speaker's personal lawyers from representing for him on the objections raised by the Opponent's lawyers by misinterpreting Section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956, by suggesting that the Speaker is a public officer and need to be represented by a State Legal Officer, when the same legal officers had appeared for the opponents in another matter which tantamount to conflict of interest while this State Legal Officer have not received the Speaker's permission to represent him or have they been advised about the matter.

But surprise to many, Article 132, Clause (3) of the Federal Constitution clearly states that the public service shall not be taken (b) to comprise the office of President, Speaker, Deputy President, Deputy Speaker or member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly of a State.

With this revelation it clearly illustrates that the Order granted by this novice JD from the Ipoh High Court is a illegality since Section 24 (2) of the Government Proceedings Act does not apply.

Further more, Article 72, Clauses (1) to (3) Federal Constitution clearly spells out that (1) the validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any Court.

So now you know from the Federal Constitution itself that the validity of the suspension of Datuk Dr Zambry and his six Exco members from the Barisan Nasional by the Speaker in the State Assembly cannot be questioned in any court and the Speaker's decision is binding, lawful and need to be followed without question.

The Federal Constitution is the supreme law of our nation and for this novice JC to misinterpret it, clearly shows his complete incompetence in the law or he has invented a new law - UMNO LAW to replace our Federal Constitution or Laws of Malaysia so that his appointment tenure could be extended and he be elevated if he were to assist this unscrupulous UMNO-led Barisan Nasional federal government to wrest power through the back door. (Even the Minister-in-charge was unaware that this JC's appointment expired on 28 February 2009 and only came to realise this after a blog report was made after the 3 March 2009 court episode). Rightfully, the JC should have been prevented from hearing this case and/or disallowed into the Court premises.

If this novice JC had seeked the assistance of the eminent Counsel Tommy Thomas to submit as an amicus curiae, this case would not have turn this ugly and created such a mess, indirectly undermining the independence of the judiciary while creating a mistrust on every Judicial officer by the rakyat.

2 comments:

Purple Haze said...

Given that this JC had no locus standi, will his "decision" be valid ? Or will all of it be nullified ?

I have not read any new development on this but surely an important issue like this should be clariifed by the AG's chambers or the Judiciary.

If a mistake has been made by the JC, shouldn't it be rectified immediately to prevent more illegal actions being taken, arising out of the wrong decision ?

Or is the silence a deliberate action ?

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,酒店,