Correcting a comedy of stupidities. Devil's advocate series no 7.

1. When in January 2026, the AG decided on a DNAA on wak47, it caused a furor among law abiding citizens of Malaysia.

2. The court has already decided that this is case in which a defense is required. In legal jargon, there is a prima facie case. 

3. This is case that is valid against the whole world. Ownership of the case is the state's. 

4. It's no longer ownership between private parties such as the case involving the health minister an a convicted certain kleptocrat in chief. 

5. In the DNAA case, the prosecution is to be carried out by the state 

6. It is not opened to the AGC to discontinue with the case without the concurrence of the court. 

7. The court may not agree or affirmed the 'proposal 'from the AG. 

8. The court has the final authority to decide to continue with a case in a prima facie status has been found . 

9. By deciding to discontinue the case without the concurrence of the court, the AG and the AGC have misapprioprated that authority from the court . 

10. In common language,that is insolence and contempt of court 

11. Contempt in the form of not only in words but also in conduct. 

12. For snatching and robbing and usurping the authority of the court alone, the AG must be punished appropriately. 

13. The AG said he wished to discontinue the case as more evidence and information is required. But a prima facie case has already been found 

14. The judge then should have stopped the AGs incompetence then 

15. Wasn't that an open admission of incompetence and lack of meticulousness on the part of the AG? 

16. That confirms my belief that some lawyers and judges are like eggs which come in various grades . 

17. Grades A to C where C is the lousiest. 

18. This is a comedy of stupidities. The first round of stupidity was committed by the AGC. It was further fortified by the carelessness of the judge then. By countenancing the 1st round of imbecility. 

19. Therefore, in my opinion the bar council's objection to the application of DNAA by the AG is correct. 

20. It is asking the court to reinstate the 47 charges and to declare the application for DNAA as null and void. 

21. It's also asking the court to slap an act of mandamus on the part of the AG 

22. An act of mandamus, if I remember correctly is asking the AG to act according to specific articles of various statutes. What these are,the clever lawyers will know la . 

23. If an act of mandamus is applied for, doesn't that mean the AG has violated some provisions in appropriate statues? 

24. Is that misfeasance or non feasance? The tuan Pegu can answer that . 

25. Since when can the AGC, an inferior body in relation to the court unilaterally decide to grant a DNAA? 

26. It also seems to suggest that what manner of legal action is chosen varies with the stature of the person of interest? 

27. Is the DNAA chosen because the person is the DPM? 

28. Isn't it true, that the court recognizes only a litigant and no DPM, tan Sri, Dato Seri etc? 

29. In applying to the court for various remedies, the Bar Council must remain stout and steely resolved. 

30. It must not capitulate to the objections of various Malay supremacists. 

31. Some say the actions of the bar council is an attempt to frustrate the DPM in various ways 

32. To criminalize him, to discredit him , envious of him etc. Worse, the bar council's action is anti Malay. 

33. I am especially annoyed when some idiots say, because the judges and bar council's members are non malays, they will never give justice to Malays. 

34. Idiots will say that. They don't understand the meaning of fair play and professionalism. 

35. I believe, in a body like the bar council, professionalism and fair play will prevail.

Tweet

Read more...

Judicial independence, tyranny of the minority and related issues.

1. I listened carefully, the speech given by the pasir gudang mp. He won't throw his boss under the bus. The pm says he doesn't interfere with the judiciary. Judicial independence is intact

2. At the moment we are debating about DNAA. Not about any intrusion on judicial independence. Debating about this bloody DNAA ought not drag in whether the pm has exercised any undue influence on judicial independence.

3. Judicial independence is a given. It must be free from threats, influence or inducements from any parties or any branches of government. Any opinions on the contrary are wrong.

4. In an earlier article, I have mentioned as an opinion, in the exercise of leadership, the pm should give Intel information to the judge. I was and am wrong in giving such opinion.

5. Judicial independence must be preserved at all cost. It is an unasailable and an inviolable principle.

6. In simple terms, we do not interfere in the business of a judge, any judge in deciding cases before him or her.

7. In an adverserial system like ours, the judge decides the case on the basis of arguments of the contending parties. Suppose, in a case the prosecution team prepares a half past six brief and is overwhelmed by the defence team, the judge will decide in favour of the defence team.

8. In a book written by 2 Harvard professors, ziblatt and levitsky, democracy will continue if at least we ensure 3 things are done .

9. The book, called tyranny of the minority , tells us how democracy can continue and be sustained.

10. Similarly, borrowing some ideas from the book, our judicial independence, indeed the whole legal superstructure can be sustained and be continued, if we do at least 3 things.

11. The 3 things we must at least do are:-
A. Accept the decision of the court
B. We must not engage in any violence, aggression and extrajudicial activities aimed at overthrowing the decision of the court
C. We must not support or align ourselves with extremist element seeking to overthrow the court's decision .

12. Everybody talks about judicial independence like it's some airy fairy concept. To ensure actual judicial independence, I think we must at least do these 3 things.

13. When these basic things are not done or are willfully violated, judicial independence and indeed the whole legal superstructure are imperiled.

14. Take the case of alibabavum Najib . BTW, alibabavum is an old Tamil movie about Alibaba, who was actually a thief but romanticized as a folklore hero .

15. The decision of the court is not accepted and is disputed. UMNO leaders engaged in all sorts of extrajudicial activities, the CJ threatened. UMNO leaders demand a royal pardon to circumvent the courts decision. They align themselves with extremist elements ready to create trouble .

16. If we do not do at least the basic things, then don't talk la about protecting the superstructure of the law( rule of law, supremacy of the law, judicial independence yada yada). Provocations by the extremists and UMNO leaders are not song and dance issues. They are a kind of insurrection that must be dealt with decisively and with the full force of the law. Hey, the proud boys in the USA January 6th insurrection got more jail time than red lips Najib got. And they didn't steal any money.

17. Having said that principle of judicial independence is a non contestable issue, I am however appalled at the tortiese pace of the legal process.

18. It takes years for some cases, especially corruption cases to come to a finality. Stranger things happened here in the jungle of the law than in the jungles of India, described by Rudyard Kipling.

19. Everything seems to end in the long run, which is ridiculous. In the long run, says the economist John Maynard Keynes, we are all dead.

20. I have heard about justice rushed is justice crushed, but in Malaysia, its more of the case of, justice delayed, is justice denied .

21. As I have said, the length time by which some cases reached finality, has reached ridiculous proportions. Allow me to embellish it thus:-

22. Finally, I am agitated when some people say the judge has no choice, don't blame judges and courts and so on.

23. Hoi hello, some British judges in history were corrupt and abusive and self serving. They were rightly condensed and punished. Over here, judges are not sacrosanct and are not sacred cows. They can also err and when they do, can be criticised and blamed

24. That sir and Madam, is my opinion. My own opinion, says Christopher Hitchens, is enough for me. I claim the right to have it defended against any consent and majority any place, anywhere and anytime. And if you don't like it, get a ticket, fall into line and kiss my ass.'

Tweet

Read more...