A case of bad law. Why it's not a formality. Tales by an unknown blogger. No 35

1. I intercept my installment on 'By Any Means Necessary ' because I hear of some disturbing statements on royal pardon. Although the issue of pardon is over. We are facing the issue of addendum now. Not the same.

2. These prominent lawyers say the right to pardon is a formality. But does the claim of formality extends to the addendum, if it ever exists at all?

3. No one has yet establish it's existence. The subject matter of the addendum is house arrest. Which is not provided for in the constitution.

4. Unlike lord Denning who is a mathematician first before reading law , most lawyers are illiterate in mathematics.

5. Let us assume, improbably Najib is granted a house arrest. The UMNO people are jumping joyously.

6. But what if he's found guilty of the charges made out against him in the 1MDB case? 7. Will he then be snatched from his langgak duta mansion to serve time in Kajang Hilton?

8. Therefore I think the biggest stumbling block for Najib getting the subject matter of the addendum, the wine chalice as it were, is the yet to be finished 1MDB case.

9. So Mr lawyers sirs, let's be clear about what we are discussing. The issue of pardon is over. Now we are discussing the subject matter of the addendum. Does the formality also extends over the addendum?

10. In the opinion of an idiot non lawyer, until the 1MDB case is finished, the issue of the addendum cannot be deliberated by the pardons board.

11. If I am not mistaken, Najibs lead counsel said this 1MDB case will take years to complete. Thus in the words of a late judge, the issue of the addendum is, ' irrelevant '

12. Then we have to explain whether the addendum is part of the pardon or a separate matter to discuss on its own .

13. In the meantime, lawyers will continue with their legal argle bargle .we have only heard narratives supporting the convicted felon. It's not possible to reach a conclusion yet .

14. Lawyers with differing outlooks will argue their positions till the cows come home. Listening to either perspectives, without interceding them with our own judgements and information, will lead the world becoming a maddening place.

15. Listening to lawyers giving us their unfettered opinions which is reciprocated by absolute deference can lead this world becoming an asylum as it were. Because of the potential mess and havoc lawyers can create, we immediately recall 2 popular quotes about lawyers.

16. One, came from the character in 1 of Shakespeare's play, when Dick the butcher says, the 1st thing we do is to kill all the lawyers.

17. The other came from Mr Dimble, a character from Dickens book who says , 'the law is a(n) ass, a(n) idiot'

18. The object lesson or morale of these quotes, is never accept unquestioningly the narratives of lawyers. Treat them with a pinch of salt, a dose of cynicism and circumspection or if you prefer, circumcision.

19. Analyse and think about what they say. Perhaps not everything is true. Apply the thing between your ears. And I don't mean the nose.

20. We will notice that lawyers like to quote this and that clause. To justify their arguments. We have no quarrel over this. That is their stock in trade.

21. Perhaps also to prevent us laymen from intruding into their turf. Their province. Which they jealously guard.

22. But that won't stop us laymen from saying this or that law is bad law. In our opinion that is .

23. One assertion that I take exception with is saying the king's prerogative to pardon is a formality. And that prerogative extends to the business of the pardons board.

24. That in my opinion, as a layman, is bad law. No disrespect to the king. Here are my reasons why .

25. The king does not sit in solus. As in some celebratory occasions or during his birthday.

26. On these occasions the King enjoys unfettered and absolute prerogative to pardon. As in the case of the sultan of Selangor. On the sultans birthday, he pardoned a convict who obtained a doctorate during his uninterrupted sojourn in his cell.

27. But the king does not sit in solus in the pardons board. As a member of the pardons board he loses his absolute prerogative to pardon. Sitting alone , he is X. As a member of the pardons board, he is X -1. Is X the same as X - 1?

28. It's a bad law that results in the king losing his estimation and majesty. The Malay says mencemar dulu .

29. Let's use the language of an accountant. If one side suffers a debit(losing estimation) another side gets the credit. When the king suffers a debit, the pardons board gets the credit. Ok so far?

30. The pardons board secures a credit through the operations of a bad law. The pardons board 'steals' a credit from the king and confers the stolen credit upon itself. Stealing is a crime right? How can a law condones a crime. Hence a law giving prerogative or formality is a bad law.

31. Also, such a law flies in the face of the sovereignty of our constitution. Isn't our country a constitutional monarchy?

32. The constitution is the guard rails, the constraints that prevent the king to behave accordingly.

33. The constitution provides the king unfettered prerogative to pardon when he sits in solus. That prerogative does not extend when he sits as part of the pardons board.

34. On a number of cases, decisions of the pardons board have been considered amenable to a review by the courts. Why can't the courts now review the pardons board decision involving Najib?

35. As I said, no disrespects to the king. I have given my reasoned arguments thereof. If you don't agree, please come out with your reasoned arguments.

36. In the next article I will give my views on the addendum issue. I shall write on the politics behind the solidarity with Najib issue.