Judiciary can't interfere with BN Legislative, but can with Pakatan Legislative

I’m now utterly confused by the be-wigged or be-songkok-ed wise men of the Judiciary.

In Malaysiakini Speaker vs speaker: Sivakumar's suit thrown out Judge Azahar Mohamed said in the Ipoh High Court yesterday that:

… the court could not interfere with what had been decided by the Perak assemblymen at their sitting on May 7 in accordance with Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution, "which states that the validity of any proceeding in any state legislative assembly cannot be questioned in any court" ...

… and because, in his learned judgement that the Perak Legislative Assembly has an exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, the decision of the legislative assembly on May 7, 2009 to remove the plaintiff as speaker and to appoint the defendant was conclusive.

He pontificated: "To question the validity of the removal and appointment is to question the validity of the constitution. This cannot be done in virtue of Article 72."

Therefore he struck out with costs the suit by PKR legislative assembly speaker V Sivakumar against BN speaker R Ganesan

Believe it or not, I actually agree with him on the part of his ruling which raised the constitutional principle of separation of powers between the legislative and the judiciary. What he stated has been what we (virtually everyone, except UMNO people) have been saying all along … BUT

… yes BUT his judgement has (coincidentally of course) now ruled in the favour of the BN usurpers.

… BECAUSE …

… prior to this, the court had ruled that the Perak DUN’s suspension of BN Zambry and a number of BN ADUNs were invalid even though that was passed by the committee on rights and privileges and a subsequent proceeding of the state legislative assembly.

In that earlier court determination, on Speaker Sivakumar and the DUN's suspension of Zambry and some of his BN cohorts, the Judiciary saw it fit to march intrusively and unconstitutionally into the domain of the Legislative ... virtually an unprecedented rape of the Constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers.

But unprecedented and unconstitutional as that might have been, it became a legal precedent. The principle of stare decisis requires judges to obey this legal precedent ... but apparently not so, as the Ipoh High Court has shown yesterday.

So can you blame a comment in the MKINI news article, that the judge interpreted the Constitution correctly when it suited the BN ... BUT failed abysmally to take into consideration the earlier decision of the court made by his colleague? Thus he condemned the Judiciary as being nothing more than a tool to the political conveniences of the ruling UMNO elites.

Another MKINI commentator remarked sarcastically that His Lordship - apart of ignoring the (no doubt questionable) legal precedent made by his colleagues against Sivakumar when the Judiciary then had violated (or raped) the Legislative - couldn’t even identify the claim in Sivakumar’s case on an issue of battery, assault and wrongful detention from proceedings of the Assembly.


Poor assaulted and illegally detained Sivakumar has not obtained the redress he sought, but he is lucky as he hasn't suffered a similar fate to that of the principle of stare decisis, which appears to have been decapitated like a cow's head.

And it might just be opportune to recall what Groucho Max said about 'principles':

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them ... well, I have others."