Ghani Patail and Musa Hassan will go down well in history as the greatest crook of all time who make a joke out of the judiciary, the law and order and the human rights of Malaysia.

Ghani Patail and Musa Hassan will go down well in history as the greatest crook of all time who make a joke out of the judiciary, the law and order and the human rights of Malaysia.

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has closed one of the four investigation papers opened on the V.K. Lingam video clip case for lack of evidence to press charges under Section 11(c) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997, the Dewan Rakyat was told today.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz said three of the investigation papers were referred to the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

He said this in a written reply to Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugor) who had wanted to know why no follow-up action had been taken against any individual following the recommendation of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the V.K. Lingam video clip.

Nazri said no follow-up action was taken in two of the referred investigation papers owing to lack of evidence to show any offence was committed.

He also said that no one could be identified as having committed an offence during the handling of classified documents in the consideration of the appointment of judges of the high court.

Meanwhile, one more investigation paper was incomplete as an important witness had yet to be traced, he said.

The five-member commission, in its report, found that it was former chief justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim who was talking to prominent lawyer Datuk V. K. Lingam on the telephone, and that the video clip was authentic and that the conversation was true in substance.

The commission also recommended that appropriate course of action be taken against six individuals – Lingam, tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan, Umno secretary-general Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and two former chief justices, Ahmad Fairuz and Tun Mohd Eusoff Chin – for misconduct.

It found that there was sufficient evidence to investigate the six men for offences under the Sedition Act, Official Secrets Act, the Penal Code and the Legal Profession Act 1976.

In a written judgment by Justice Nik Hashim Nik Rahman, the Federal Court empowers the Election Commission (EC) to over-rule the Speaker over the resignations of the three ‘independents’ in Perak and declares these assemblymen continue to stay as assemblymen.

By Kim Quek

This judgment, released on June 15 – sixty seven days after the oral judgment was given by the panel of five judges on April 9 – is flawed on two scores.

First, the court has misinterpreted the Constitution to wrongly declare the EC – instead of the Speaker – as the authority to decide whether a resignation in the legislature should be accepted.

Second, even if the court is correct in giving EC the role of the final arbiter in respect of resignations in a legislature (which is decidedly wrong in law), the court has no business to declare the three ‘independents’ remain as assemblymen.

The kingpin of the court’s argument is Article 36(5) of the Perak Constitution, which reads:

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has closed one of the four investigation papers opened on the V.K. Lingam video clip case for lack of evidence to press charges under Section 11(c) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997, the Dewan Rakyat was told today.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz said three of the investigation papers were referred to the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

He said this in a written reply to Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugor) who had wanted to know why no follow-up action had been taken against any individual following the recommendation of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the V.K. Lingam video clip.

Nazri said no follow-up action was taken in two of the referred investigation papers owing to lack of evidence to show any offence was committed.

He also said that no one could be identified as having committed an offence during the handling of classified documents in the consideration of the appointment of judges of the high court.

Meanwhile, one more investigation paper was incomplete as an important witness had yet to be traced, he said.

The five-member commission, in its report, found that it was former chief justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim who was talking to prominent lawyer Datuk V. K. Lingam on the telephone, and that the video clip was authentic and that the conversation was true in substance.

The commission also recommended that appropriate course of action be taken against six individuals – Lingam, tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan, Umno secretary-general Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and two former chief justices, Ahmad Fairuz and Tun Mohd Eusoff Chin – for misconduct.

It found that there was sufficient evidence to investigate the six men for offences under the Sedition Act, Official Secrets Act, the Penal Code and the Legal Profession Act 1976.

In a written judgment by Justice Nik Hashim Nik Rahman, the Federal Court empowers the Election Commission (EC) to over-rule the Speaker over the resignations of the three ‘independents’ in Perak and declares these assemblymen continue to stay as assemblymen.

By Kim Quek

This judgment, released on June 15 – sixty seven days after the oral judgment was given by the panel of five judges on April 9 – is flawed on two scores.

First, the court has misinterpreted the Constitution to wrongly declare the EC – instead of the Speaker – as the authority to decide whether a resignation in the legislature should be accepted.

Second, even if the court is correct in giving EC the role of the final arbiter in respect of resignations in a legislature (which is decidedly wrong in law), the court has no business to declare the three ‘independents’ remain as assemblymen.

The kingpin of the court’s argument is Article 36(5) of the Perak Constitution, which reads:  READMORE

Narrow-minded judgment coming out from the Malaysian Federal CourtWHAT DO EXPECT FROM THECHILD lewd materials PEDDLER’S FATHER TO COME UP WITH

• Posted in: Uncategorized