Keputusan Rayuan ADUN Perak
Pada jam 4.55 pm, Selepas selesai sahaja penghujahan, Hakim telah menangguhkan sidang prosiding! Keputusan akan diketahui jam 3.30 ptg esok.
Panel tiga hakim diketuai oleh Datuk Md. Raus Shariff yang bersidang bersama Hakim Datuk Zainun Ali dan Hakim Datuk Ahmad Maarop menetapkan keputusan akan dibacakan pada pukul 3.30 petang esok.
Kita tunggu besok ...apa pun keputusannya BN pasti kena belasah atas bawah....menang pun kena kalah pun kena. Yang menang pun bukan PAS tapi DAP...
1 comments:
Sementara itu, boleh kah jawab ini?
MB vs MB appeal: more lopsided coincidences
While the appeal hearing of MB vs MB is being played out at the Court of Appeal, we observe more ‘lopsided coincidences’ - incidents that seriously question the confidence and integrity of the Malaysian judiciary.
First, as reported:
It is learnt that (Nizar’s) letter to request the five-member panel did not reach the Court of Appeal president Alauddin Md Sheriff on time.
How weird when the request was faxed to the CoA on May 18. Does it take more than three days for a piece of paper to reach the desk of the CoA president? For such an urgent matter affecting our Constitution, mind you!
So this is indeed one lopsided coincidence. Contrast this with the other lopsided coincidences, when Zambry got his stay order hearing the very next day and got his stay order within hours. Fine, you can say coincidences do happen, but these are very lopsided.
Then, there is second lopsided coincidence today:
(Nizar’s) application before the court today is to set aside the stay of execution order obtained by his rival Zambry Abd Kadir against a High Court ruling which had declared Nizar as the legitimate menteri besar of Perak.
However, the court will first hear Zambry’s appeal proper today.
How pathetic, and what a lopsided coincidence. In the case of Zambry’s application for the stay order, Justice Ramly used the argument that if he did not grant the stay order, Nizar could use his legitimate MB position to request dissolution of Perak state assembly, thus making Zambry’s appeal proper academic. But here, in this lopsided coincidence, isn’t it academic also for Nizar’s application to set aside the stay order if Zambry’s appeal is heard first, by whatever outcome (either way)?
By the way, Justice Ramly is a one-month-old CoA judge when he granted the stay order. That is one big lopsided coincidence in itself.
And then we also have a few other lopsided coincidences occurring in the judiciary. For instance, Justice Abdul Aziz, the KL High Court judge who ruled in favour of Nizar, wrote his judgement in black and white within less than two weeks. Whereas, the Federal Court, which ruled in favour of Zambry in a few cases, refused to provide written judgements. How weird, but coincidental!
With so many lopsided coincidences, we can almost derive at the conclusion that this is a lopsided judiciary, coincidentally it may be.
Post a Comment