Thursday, May 17, 2007

Forbidden Constitution?

I am wholly surprised to read the "Instruction" issued by the judges of the highest Appellate Court of Malaysia to the counsel Malik Imtiaz Sarwar who was representing R. Subashini vs Muhammad Shafi Saravanan. Justice Datuk Augustine Paul, sitting with Justice Datuk Abdul Aziz Mohamad and Justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad at the Federal Court had instructed Counsels not to touch on the constitutional issues of the case and only confined their submissions as to whether the High Court judge was right or wrong in setting aside the appellant's application.

This is puzzling considering that all laws are derived from the "Rule of Recognition" or as Kelsen called, Norms. The constitution is the basis of the legal rights and the only legal authority of reference. Without the constitution, the legal validity of the system is crushed and the nation would become a lawless society.

Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution may have been breached by the Court of First Instance. Under the Article, it was constitutional guarantee of individual citizens to practice their religion they and no one can compel another against their wish.

Couldn't comment further as it would be a contempt of court. I believed the Federal Court are capable to decide and apply the rule of law and the rule of natural justice. [Period].


politikus said...

problem is, judges these days are saying syariah laws is the grundnorm! that is what's most frightening. especially muslim judges who are, apparently, torn between the constitution and god's law which they admitted themselves.

i recall the argument in lina joy by the federal counsel: islam and it's laws came before our constitution. therefore islamic laws is authoritative.

moo_t said...

In Bolehland, when you particular kangaroo court judge in place , you don't expect "justice".

Maybe in next 10 years, Bolehland will produce a book call "Kangaroo court judges in Bolehland"