Mahkamah Persekutuan

The original post from

iMahkamah Persekutuan hari ini menolak

permohonan Zambry Kadir dari Barisan Nasional untuk mendapatkan perisytiharan bahawa beliau Menteri Besar Perak yang sah.

Zambry mahu merujuk isu dua Menteri Besar negeri itu terus kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan tanpa menunggu keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur.

Mahkamah Tinggi kini dalam proses membicarakan isu-isu yang dikemukakan oleh Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin dari Pakatan Rakyat.

Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan Alauddin Mohd Sheriff bersetuju dengan bantahan awal peguam Nizar, Sulaiman Abdullah bahawa isu tertentu harus diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi.

Alauddin berkata wujud percanggahan jelas dalam keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh Mohd Nizar dan Penasihat Undang-Undang yang mewakili Zambry.

Menurut Alauddin, isu percanggahan fakta itu harus

diputuskan oleh Mahkamah

Tinggi.

Selain cuba memintas Mahkamah Tinggi, Zambry telah menggerakkan usaha untuk memanggil sidang Dewan Undangan Negeri pada 7 Mei.

Beliau sebelum

ini mendakwa bahawa Sultan dan bukan

rakyat yang menentukan pihak mana harus menubuhkan kerajaan neger

.

PerakExpress.com
dari rakyat untuk rakyat

Wonderful quotes from N.H.Chan

By webmaster • Apr 30th, 2009 • Category: Isi I
Post Meta
On judges:

“The judge who gives the right judgment but does not appear to be impartial is useless to the judicial process.”

Interpretation of Article 72(1):

“it does not matter if you are DAP or PKR or MCA or Barisan Nasional or any political party. Even a child could understand the plain meaning of the words. We do not need the Federal Court to interpret (meaning “explain the meaning of”) the words for us. Nor do we need any law professor from Singapore to tell us Malaysians that the courts should have the power of judicial review over what has transpired in Parliament or a Legislative Assembly”

on why Perakians are angry with the Sultan:

“It’s because, as any lawyer will tell you, especially as he was Lord President before, that before you make a decision, you cannot see the parties. If you want to meet any of the parties, both of them must be present. You never do so by seeing one and then making a decision. The moment you do that, to the losing side or to any observer will think you have been influenced. So it’s the impression that counts.

They were angry with the Sultan because they can sense it in their bones that it is wrong to make a decision to see the other side first.“

Is the Sultan morally wrong or legally wrong?

“ If the Sultan had executive powers to rule, it is legally wrong, so they could apply for judicial review of the Sultan’s decision. But I pointed out in my first article he has no executive power to rule because he is not an executive monarch, he is a constitutional monarch. What he did was morally wrong.”