1. As citizens, we find it absolutely disgusting to be of the realisation that we live in a country which has well established forms of institutions which were developed and established by our colonial masters, and handed over to our Government, after independence, which institutions, are now being used to serve some form of political interest.
  1. The institutions in particular are the “ JUDICIARY and the POLICE FORCE.” In this Article the main focus would be on the administration of justice.
  1. It has been published by the main stream print media, that the Court of Appeal has since handing down its decision on 22nd. May 2009, has to date not formulated its Judgment. In making its decision, to declare Zambry as the rightful Chief Minister of Perak, the Judge assured Nizar’s lawyers, that the “written” Judgment would be delivered, within a week.
  1. The answer could be, that they did an injustice by declaring Zambry as the rightful Chief Minister or they are now caught in a cob-web of their own making, that is, that they now realise that they did not do justice as provided for in the “SUPREME LAW” of the land, that is , the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
  1. It is clear and apparent that the Judges of the Court of Appeal, in Nizar’s case, have by their decision, committed a grievous act of misconduct and further have clearly demonstrated to the world their incompetence and their lack of knowledge in the sphere of Constitutional Law or having the knowledge, have demonstrated their intellectual dishonesty in arriving at a decision, which is obviously wrong, or is baseless and without any foundation in law or in equity or on the basis of well established Constitutional Conventions.
  1. The time honoured principle is that, “JUSTICE IS BLIND”. However the Judges of the Court of Appeal, who decided, that Zambry is the rightful Chief Minister, were not “BLIND” and that could be the reason as to why, they are having such a great deal of difficulty in writing a judgment of “DIVINE PRESCIENCE AND PERFECT CLARITY” to justify their reasons for setting aside the Grounds of Judgment which was handed down by Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim of the High Court of Kuala Lumpur.
  1. Now, let a call “A SPADE A SPADE”. We do not need a rocket scientist to explain to Lawyers on the Principles that govern the grant of a “DECLARATION” in the Nizar v Zambry case.
  1. The study of “the development of the law” is a discipline which in itself is a science. In this science, a lawyer learns to think on his feet, so goes the expression. So, if the common man on the street is now openly saying, “ in hakim sumar suda kena beli or dia sumar bodeh kerjaan” what does it connote? The answer is pure and simple, that is, the Court of Appeal judges have been intellectually dishonest in Nizar’s Case.
  1. But then even before this case we have had a  great deal of publicity on the “LINGAM’S SCANDLE” and before that the “ADORNA PROPERTIES and the AYER MOLEK’ cases, where the Federal Court Judges have been intellectually dishonest. NH CHAN a former Court of Appeal Judge has in his book, “HOW TO JUDGE THE JUDGES” second edition, states:

“ Therefore, under no circumstances must we, in this country and for the sake of the nation, have judges who are interested in the pursuit of power; we must never have another PS GILL or EUSOFF CHIN. As Lord Nolan has put it, “judges are not interested in the pursuit of power. If they were, they would not have become judges”.

  1. So, if the Court of Appeal Judges in Nizar’s case, were not in the pursuit of power, then how and on what basis of the principles of Constitutional Law did they decide with such great “CERTAINTY” that the declaration that Nizar is the rightful Chief Minister, should be set aside. Having had acted with certainty, why are the judges taking so much time in delivering the written grounds of their judgment.
  1. Maybe, some retired old English Judge is writing the grounds of the judgment, as we follow the Westminster model as being the basis of the operation of our Constitutional structure. But then the old Judge has a problem, as the law in England has matured since 1066 and by Convention it has been “ESTABLISHED” that the Crown must act on the advice of the Prime Minister. This could be the predicament faced by the judges at the Palace of Justice. Maybe, It is like the story of the ostrich.
  1. Be that as it may, there is a lesson to be learnt, when one acts with “CERTAINTY”. That is why Bertrand Russell once remarked, “ONES CERTAINTY VERIES INVERSLY WITH ONES KNOWLEDGE”.
  1. This may be the result of giving recognition to “ MEDIOCRITY”. There are also a host of other factors that are at play, which cannot be dealt, here.
  1. But whatever the factors, that may be at play, the people of Perak in particular and the Nation in general, will not under any circumstance tolerate Naked Justice being dispensed at the whims and fancies from the Palace of Justice.


  1. boscopa Says:

    Yes, i am the author of this post

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: