The Bala Interview Part 1 of 3

From behind the walls of the A-G Chambers

From Malaysia Today

When one senior prosecutor refused to fix up RPK’s sedition trial by falsifying the evidence he was removed from the case and within 24 hours transferred to a court that hears cases involving unpaid credit cards and car installments. That is what the A-G Chambers has been reduced to; a tool to fix up cases of those opposed to those who walk in the corridors of power. It is time, however, that those of us inside the A-G Chambers speak out and reveal the truth. And today we are going to do just that.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

From Inside the A-G Chambers

Malaysians must be reminded that Gani Patail and Musa Hassan are today Malaysia's  A-G and IGP respectively as a reward for fixing up Anwar Ibrahim in the Sodomy I trial in 1998-1999. 

They remain as the IGP and A-G under Najib's rule as a further reward for burying the Altantuya murder case for which Razak Baginda got away scot-free while RPK got charged for sedition and criminal defamation based on trumped-up charges and fabricated evidence.

To their mind, it should not be too difficult to get RPK convicted and stopped from being a nuisance to their plans. All they need is a police department, A-G Chambers and Judiciary working in tandem and in compliance to those who walk in the corridors of power in Putrajaya.

The modus operandi of fabricating evidence and amending the charges several times in the midst of a trial -- as what happened to Anwar -- have since become the SOP (standard operating procedure) in all cases where A-G Gani and IGP Musa are involved. That happens because:

i) they fix up cases;

ii) because of sheer incompetence, they don't know how to fix the cases properly; 

iii) they know the courts will still help them to fix these cases even if they botched up badly.

This collaboration is a good example of Najib's 1Malaysia.

To those who play by their rules, be prepared to suffer. Just look at how Anwar was convicted. And now they are doing the same to him in the Sodomy II trial as well. Even if you win the first round before some brave Sessions Court Judge or High Court Judge, you will still get fixed at the Court of Appeal or the Federal Court - the Superior Courts as these are called.

And I don't need to tell you why they made Tan Sri Zaki Tun Azmi the Chief Justice -- this despite the fact that the Shariah Court was about to punish him for taking a second wife without proper permission from the Qadi.

To disprove the woman's claim that she was his second wife, (or was it third or fourth?), Zaki burned the marriage certificate which was evidence of his illegal marriage to that woman. So, without that evidence, all it proved was that he had merely convinced that woman they were already married so that she would allow him to screw her. Hey! Isn't that also an offence? Never mind, though. Today, he is the Chief Justice and Muslims are not supposed to dig up someone's bad past. So let’s leave that for another day.

The point is this. The Superior Courts (but don't let them tell you the legal brains there are superior than that in the lower courts), which is closely monitored by Tan Sri Zaki, will cover-up for the A-G and the IGP. But if anyone else makes any mistake, you will surely pay for it, no matter how trivial. That's what happened to Karpal Singh when he filed Anwar Ibrahim's appeal in English. The Court of Appeal summarily dismissed the appeal -- not that these Judges do not understand English.

In RPK's sedition and criminal defamation trials, the police fabricated evidence by doing a cut-and-paste of Malaysia Today's website and tried to pass it off as a downloaded printout of the articles RPK was alleged to have written. When RPK's counsel, Gobind Singh, caught them red-handed, the A-G amended the charge.

That was not the only fabrication. There were many more.

They did that too in Dato' Ramli Yusuff's case. In case you have forgotten, Dato' Ramli was the former Director of the CCID PDRM who had investigated the Along money-lending syndicate's connection to Musa Hassan. IGP Musa Hassan needed to take Dato' Ramli out. So Musa went to Gani and Gani advised him to use the MACC where Musa's in-law was one of the Directors.

So they got the MACC to launch an investigation against Dato’ Ramli and roped in the mainstream media to create this sensational news that Dato' Ramli was a corrupted cop who had RM27 million in his bank account. But they could not make that charge stick after Dato' Ramli engaged his friend and lawyer, Rosli Dahlan, to prepare his defence. Since Rosli was a hindrance, he too must be taken out.

The game plan was easy. Publicly humiliate Rosli so badly so that all his clients would run away. They knew Rosli's partners and corporate clients would not have the stomach for these things. After they charged Rosli, it was so easy to get to Ramli because everyone else got scared and could be made to toe the line -- or else face the same consequences as Rosli.

Then they charged Ramli -- but not for the RM 27 million originally bandied about because there was never any RM27 million in the first place. It was just a nice figure they plucked from the air. Instead, they charged Ramli for abuse of power in using a police Cessna plane, and for some small change. 

Already, the Court in Kota Kinabalu has discovered Musa Hassan's hidden hands in making that false charge and acquitted Ramli without even calling for his defence. But A-G Gani Patail instantly filed an appeal.

Malaysians would still remember that A-G Gani did not want to file an appeal vs Razak Baginda's acquittal. So why the appeal against Ramli? Because Ramli will be very dangerous to them if he comes back to the Police Force. Well, we will just have to wait and see what happens to the A-G's appeal in the Superior Courts.

So that you get a clear picture, Ramli's trial lasted 57 days (longer than most murder trials) in which IGP Musa Hassan was the 75^th as well as the star witness, literally, as he has 4 stars on each side of his shoulders. Since his acquittal, Ramli has lodged a police report against the ACA officer Sok One a/l Esen who, as part of Musa Hassan's conspiracy, fabricated a false charge against Ramli. Ramli is still hopeful that the Police Force will protect their brothers in blue and will investigate the MACC for it's abuses against someone as senior as he was. Let's see if Ramli's hopes come true.

In the meantime, Rosli Dahlan, who was also involved in preparing the CCID's affidavits when A-G Gani refused to represent the CCID in the Along investigation case, has launched a RM50 million claim. Despite Utusan Malaysia having profusely apologised for their “unethical journalism”, he still sued that UMNO newspaper and 11 officers of the MACC and A-G Chambers for fixing him up. Rosli remained furious that they did all that to him just because he defended Dato' Ramli. Rosli has also filed a second suit against The Star and their pimp editors, Dato Seri Wong Chun Wai and Dato Lourdes Charles. Word has it that Rosli is also gunning for another mainstream media, the culprit which frontpaged the “RM 27 million Cop story”.

We are not sure if Rosli is aware that he is treading on very dangerous waters by taking on all the mainstream media, the MACC and the A-G Chambers all in one go. He must not forget that Goh Cheng Poh @ Tunku Goh, who was released by the A-G and who instead charged the six policemen for gathering false evidence against Musa, is still waiting to take him out.

These days, lawyers get hit very easily and the Police won’t give a damn if Rosli gets hit. Whatever may be Rosli’s motivations, he must either be very brave or is simply mad to take on all of them. You can rest assured they will start another propaganda to make Rosli look every inch the crooked lawyer, whereas the likes of VK Linggam is cleared by the A-G and Dato’ Nazri Aziz.

But what do you tell to Rosli who still believes the Courts is the last bastion of justice? 

In typical Gani Patail's bumbling style, he directed his Chambers to file six statements of defence for 11 of the officers named, when only 1 would be sufficient as they are all government servants. But no, the A-G wanted to file six defences, as if the number of defences filed mattered. Well it did, when it was pointed out that the six statements of defence were filed wrongly!

The A-G Chambers had filed six statements of defence in the wrong court for a wrong court file number. That counts for six mistakes in one go! Under ordinary circumstances, that could be fatal and could lead to a judgement in default against these officers, in the manner Zul Rafique took such a judgement for Dato' Azim against RPK. That's also what the great Dato' Shafee Abdullah did. And both claimed they had a big victory over RPK. Did they? 

Coming back to Rosli, did he do that? Did he take a default judgment against these officers? You would expect he would. After all that they did to abuse and assault him in front of his staff; after they handcuffed him till his wrist bled; after they mistreated him in the ACA dungeon lock-up; after they threw him into the ACA dungeon and refused him bail just to make sure he really suffered and will never not forget that one very long night in Ramadan 2007; after they humiliated him the next day by parading him handcuffed along the court's corridors. And they did all that, just one day before Hari Raya Aidilfitri in October 2007 just to inflict the greatest pain and embarrassment to him, his wife and three kids. You would say fair game if he took default judgment against these officers the way Dato' Azim and Dato' Shafee took judgment against RPK. Did Rosli do that? No!

Instead of taking judgement in default against his abusers, Rosli politely called and wrote to the A-G's Chambers to tell them of their mistake and requested they rectify the mistake. The following two letters show Rosli's counsel writing to A-G Chambers and the AGC's reply. Do you see a thank you in the AGC's reply? Obviously not.

In case Rosli is deluded by his friends and counsel (and let me reveal that some of them are moles planted to distract him) into believing that his sense of fair play would be reciprocated by them, let me say just one thing: STOP DAY DREAMING MAN! These ungrateful bastards won't think twice about pinning your balls on the wall. They do not deserve to be treated with decency. You just have to hit them hard and hit them with all that you got. Read that loud and clear Rosli! 

Rosli may be a smart lawyer who does not need anyone to teach him the law. But there is something we inside the A-G Chambers can teach him about beating the abusers of the law at their own game. And this is what we want to tell you, Rosli. You want to win your case badly? Then trick them the way they have tricked everyone else just to win a case.

See what RPK did to the sedition and false declaration charges? Today, RPK has been discharged and Musa Hassan is red-faced after making a public declaration that he will bring RPK back the latest by October 2009. Musa, it’s already mid November. Your time's up!

So Rosli, look at what has happened and don't ever say we did not tell you - don't bother being a gentleman with this AG, IGP or even the Courts!

Pemimpin PR gesa Najib bersihkan nama

From Free Malaysia Today

Oleh Suganya Lingan

PETALING JAYA: Pemimpin-pemimpin Pakatan Rakyat menggesa Perdana Menteri Najib Abdul Razak supaya tampil untuk membersihkan namanya daripada tuduhan yang mengaitkannya dengan kes pembunuhan Altantuya Shaariibuu.

Mereka juga mahu Najib memberi jaminan akan keselamatan penyiasat peribadi P Balasubramaniam dan membenarkannya pulang ke Malaysia untuk mendedahkan apa yang diketahuinya mengenai pembunuhan model Mongolia itu.

Mereka juga meminta supaya Najib bersetuju dengan satu penyiasatan menerusi suruhanjaya diraja untuk membersihkan namanya dan ahli keluarganya dalam kes ini.

Kata mereka, Najib tiada pilihan kecuali menyahut cabaran ini sekiranya ingin dianggap layak dan diakui menjadi sebagai Perdana Menteri Malaysia sama ada di negara ini mahupun di peringkat antarabangsa.

Peminpin kanan DAP, Lim Kit Siang menerusi weblognya, berkata, Najib tiada pilihan selepas Bala mendedahkan apa yang berlaku ketika ditemubual di hadapan tiga peguam terkenal.

Salah seorang daripada peguam terbabit, ‘diugut’ apabila rumahnya dilontar dengan molotov cocktail.

Naib presiden Parti Keadilan Rakyat R. Sivarasa pula berkata pendedahan terbaru Bala ‘mempunyai implikasi yang serius,”.

“Ia menunjukkan bagaimana surat akuan bersumpah kedua itu dibuat serta kaitan langsung keluarga Najib dengan kes itu,” katanya yang juga Ahli Parlimen Subang.

Katanya, jika Bala berkata benar mengenai akuan bersumpah kedua untuk menolak akuan pertamanya, penyiasatan yang adil dan sahih hanya boleh dibuat menerusi suruhanraya diraja.

Turut memberi reaksi ialah Pengarah Strategi PKR yang juga Ahli Parlimen Batu, Chua Tian Chang yang menyifatkan dakwaan itu serius.

“Yang paling utama, kita tak tahu sama ada Bala bercakap benar.

“Kenapa kerajaan membenarkannya keluar masuk ke negara ini? Kenapa polis berdiam diri dan tidak menahannya. Hanya satu cara saja untuk mencari kebenaran, ia mesti disiasat dengan telus ,menerusi suruhanjaya diraja.

Katanya, siasatan perlu dibuat terhadap semua yang terbabit sama ada individu mahupun institusi yang disebut oleh Bala.

Changes small and corruption big, says Anwar

From Free Malaysia Today

By YL Chong

SEREMBAN: Parti Keadilan Rakyat adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim today acknowledged that the Barisan Nasional government was making changes but said  these were being delivered in doses that were too small considering the “big scale corruption and leakages” that were continuing.

The government would implement programmes which bring only small benefits to the people and the local mainstream media would highlight these projects, but ignoring the wayward spending by the government ministers and the huge losses due to corruption, leakages and malpractices, he added.

“The BN-controlled media like Utusan Malaysia  and RTM would play up the weaknesses of the Pakatan-Rakyat governments, especially in Selangor,  as well as controversies involving PKR and its leaders,” Anwar said in his keynote address at the one-day PKR NS State Convention held at the Chung Hwa High School here.

Read more here

SULTAN TIADA KUASA MEMECAT NIZAR

OLEH : MOHAMED HANIPA MAIDIN

Tunjukkan mana-mana peruntukkan di dalam Perlembagaan Perak yang memberi kuasa kepada Y.M Sultan Perak untuk memecat Nizar sebagai Menteri Besar ( MB ) Perak yang sah”. Itulah intipati hujah pasukan peguam Nizar semasa berhujah di Mahkamah Persekutuan , Putrajaya pada 5 November yang lalu.

Peguam Zambry dan Peguam Negara berhujah bahawa Zambry adalah MB yang sah kerana beliau telah dilantik oleh Y.M Sultan Perak di bawah Perkara 16 ( 2 ) Perlembagaan Negeri Perak. Peguam Nizar pula berhujah sebelum Zambry boleh mendakwa dia adalah MB Perak yang sah beliau perlu membuktikan terlebih dahulu bahawa jawatan MB yang disandang oleh Nizar telah dikosongkan ataupun Nizar telah dipecat secara sah berdasarkan Perlembagaan Negeri Perak.

Sepertimana yang dikatakan oleh Harley CJ ( Borneo ) di dalam kes Stephen Kalang Ningkan v Tun Abang Haji Openg and Tawi Sli ( 1966 ) 2 MLJ 187 , terdapat dua keadaan di mana Governor ( atau Sultan ) mempunyai bidibicara iaitu (a) dalam isu pelantikan MB dan ( b ) enggan bersetuju untuk membubarkan Dewan Undangan Negeri ( DUN ) .

Harley CJ seterusnya berkata “ As regards to ( a ) , nobody could be so foolish to suggest that a Governor could appoint a second Chief Minister while there was still one in office..” ( Terjemahan : “Berkenaan ( a ) , tiada orang yang terlalu bodoh untuk mencadangkan bahawa Governor boleh melantik MB yang kedua jika MB yang pertama masih memegang jawatan tersebut.” )

Apa yang jelas sehingga 5 November 2009 Zambry masih tidak dapat membuktikan bahawa kerusi MB yang Nizar pegang telah dikosongkan atau Nizar telah dipecat secara sah oleh Sultan Perak.

Peguam Zambry dan Peguam Negara berhujah bahawa memandangkan Nizar telah memohon secara betulis pada 5.2.2009 kepada Sultan bagi pembubaran DUN Perak di bawah Artikel 16 ( 6 ) Perlembagaan Perak dan memandangkan Sultan enggan menggunakan budibicaranya untuk membubar DUN Perak maka Nizar dan barisan exconya hendaklah meletakkan jawatan berdasarkan peruntukkan itu.

Peguam Zambry dan Peguam Negara juga berhujah bahawa di dalam surat Nizar kepada Sultan bertarikh 5.2.2009 itu Nizar mengatakan jumlah kerusi BN dan PR adalah sama banyak iaitu masing-masing 28 kerusi kerana kerusi tiga ADUN yang melompat telah diisytiharkan kosong oleh Speaker. Peguam Zambry dan Peguam Negara berhujah jika pun jumlah kerusi BN dan PR adalah sama iaitu 28 Nizar masih lagi tewas jika undi tidak percaya diadakan kerana kerusi PR sebanyak 28 itu termasuk kerusi speaker maka jika undian dibuat speaker tidak boleh mengundi maka PR hanya boleh dapat 27 undi sahaja.

Peguam Nizar menjawab sebelum Artikel 16 ( 6 ) hendak digunakan oleh Zambry mestilah terlebih dahulu dibuktikan bahawa Nizar telah kehilangan kepercayaan oleh Adun –Adun dan bagi menentukan hal tersebut perlu diadakah sidang dewan bagi para Adun membawa undi tidak percaya kepada Nizar. Di dalam kes ini adalah jelas tiada sebarang undi tidak percaya telah diambil dari mana-mana sidang Dun. Oleh itu prasyarat Perkara 16 ( 6 ) tidak dipenuhi di dalam kes ini.

Peguam Nizar juga berhujah bahawa berdasarkan sejarah negara ini undi tidak percaya yang dibuat di dalam sidang dewan pernah berlaku di dalam kes di Trengganu pada tahun 1961. Pada tahun 1959, PAS berjaya membentuk Kerajaan di Trengganu dan MB yang dilantik adalah Y.B Daud Samad. Pada 26/10/1961 Ketua Penerangan Umno Tuan Syed Jaafar Albar telah mengumumkan bahawa Perikatan telah menjadi parti majoriti kerana 3 orang Adun PAS dan 3 orang Adun Parti Negara telah melompat menyertai Umno.

Pada 30/10/1961 undi tidak percaya dibuat di dalam Dun Trengganu ke atas MB , Daud Samad. Selepas undi tidak percaya Daud Samad telah meminta Sultan Trengganu membubarkan Dun Trengganu namun Sultan enggan berbuat demikian. Sultan kemudiannya melantik Ibrahim Fikri dari Perikatan sebagai MB yang baru.

Jelas Sultan hanya bertindak selepas undi tidak percaya dibuat di dalam sidang dewan.

Mengenai hujah Zambry bahawa Nizar masih lagi tewas jika undi tidak percaya diadakan kerana kerusi PR sebanyak 28 itu termasuk kerusi speaker dan memandangkan speaker tidak boleh mengundi maka Nizar akan kalah jika undi dibuat peguam Nizar menjawab seperti berikut : Ya, benar speaker , Sivakumar tidak boleh mengundi tetapi jika benar-benar ada sidang Dun untuk diambil undi tidak percaya kepada Nizar apakah yang menghalang untuk Sivakumar meletak jawatan speaker dan menjadi ADUN biasa dan seterusnya mengundi. Tidakkah waktu itu kedudukan PR dan BN adalah 28 : 28. Sudah tentu jika BN terlalu bodoh melantik Adun mereka sebagai speaker sebagai ganti Sivakumar maka kerusi BN akan berkurang sebanyk 27 dan PR pula mempunyai 28 kerusi.

Peguam Nizar juga berhujah apabila Nizar enggan meletakkan jawatan adakah Sultan ada kuasa memecat beliau. Peguam Zambry dan Peguam Negara kata Sultan ada kuasa. . Peguam Nizar menjawab sila tunjukkan peruntukkan mana yang memberi kuasa itu. Peguam Zambry kata meskipun tiada peruntukkan khusus Sultan dianggap mempunyai kuasa itu ( deemed to have such a power ).

Peguam Nizar menjawab mestilah ada satu peruntukkan anggapan ( deeming provision ) di dalam Perlembagaan Perak sebelum Sultan dianggap mempunyai kuasa itu.

Sebagai contoh hujah peguam Nizar terdapat peruntukkan anggapan di bawah Perkara 19 ( 1 ) di Bahagian 2 Perlembagaan Perak bahawa Sultan dianggap telah mengosongkan jawatannya jika baginda tidak hadir dalam tempoh yang lama di dalam sidang Dewan Negara dan ketidakhadiran untuk tempoh yang lama itu tanpa alasan yang mencukui atau alasan yang munasabah. Jelas sebelum jawatan Sultan itu boleh dinggap dikosongkan Perlembagaan Perak secara jelas memperuntukkan peruntukkan berkenaan anggapan tersebut.

Hal yang sama tidak berlaku di dalam kes pengosongan jawatan MB. Tiada peruntukkan yang menyatakan bahawa jika MB enggan meletakkan jawatan kerusi MB dianggap telah kosong. Tanpa peruntukkan penting itu bagaimanakah Mahkamah boleh membuat anggapan sepertimana yang dihujahkan oleh Peguam Zambry dan Peguam Negara.

Peguam Nizar menyatakan Perlembagaan Perak dengan secara jelas menyatakan di dalam Perkara 16 ( 7 ) Perlembagaan Perak bahawa tidak seperti mana exco yang dilantik atas kerelaann Sultan ( at his pleasure ) jawatan MB tidak dipegang atas kerelaan Sultan. Oleh itu tidak timbul Sultan boleh memecat Nizar sebagai MB Perak yang sah.

Hujah telah diberikan terpulanglah kepada lima orang Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan. Bagi 5 orang hakim itu saya ingin menukilkan nasihat Hakim Israel iaitu Ehud J yang menyatakan “ Apabila para hakim duduk untuk menghakimi, hakikatnya merekalah yang sedang dihakimi.” Ya, rakyat sedang menghakimi 5 orang hakim tersebut.

KEPUTUSAN HAKIM MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN DITANGGUH

From Kamparinn Blog

Assalamualaikum dan salam sejahtera

Saya paparkan rencana yang ditulis saudara Mohamed Hanipa Maidin dari blognya "Peguampas" bertajuk, " Sultan tiada kuasa memecat Nizar". Rencana ini memaparkan beberapa perkara dan hujah semasa sessi penghujahan yang memakan masa hampir enam jam setengah pada 5 November 2009 di mahkamah Persekutuan , Putrajaya.

Terdahulu dari itu, (sebelum meneruskan penghujahan) saya telah memohon dari 5 orang hakim Melayu tersebut, melalui counsel saya Dato' Ambiga untuk mendapatkan panel hakim penuh 11 orang bagi mengadili kes ini. Diantara hujah yang dikemukakan ialah:

1. Kes ini terlalu besar dan berat kerana mahu menentukan kedudukan MB dan juga natijahnya nanti akan menentukan status PM sendiri dimasa akan datang sebagai kes dahuluan.

2. Pernah mahkamah yang sama meletakan 7 orang panel hakim bagi mengadili satu kes bersabit pengedaran dadah yang jika dibandingkan dengan kes ini jauh lebih kecil.

3. Tiga orang dari lima hakim tersebut pernah mendengar kes krisis Perak terdahulu dari ini dan membuat penghakiman tidak menyebelahi saya dan dikhuatiri prejudice.

4. Terdapat beberapa orang lagi hakim mahkamah Persekutuan yang bukan Melayu yang cukup fasih dan mahir dalam isu perlembagaan Malaysia dan Perlembagaan Perak, tetapi mereka ini seolah-olahnya sengaja dikesampingkan.

5. Memandangkan kes ini banyak merujuk kepada precedent yang terkandung dalam kes Amir Kahar di Sabah, kes Stephen Kalong Ningkan di Sarawak, kes Joseph Pairin Kitingan di Sabah, walaupun merit dan faktanya mengandungi sedikit perbedzaan, maka amat bertepatan jika di masukkan dalam panel jemaah hakim ini hakim dari Borneo, Sabah dan Sarawak.

6. Untuk diambil kesempatan dalam mengadili kes ini oleh Ketua Hakim Negara bagi mengembalikan kegemilangan dan keyakinan masyarakat dan dunia luar kepada Institusi Kehakiman di Malaysia yang teruk tercemar dan tercalar akibat pengaruh luar.

7. Bagi mencerminkan bahawa keadilan bukan hanya perlu di laksanakan tetapi mesti dilihat untuk dilaksanakan (justice must be seen to be done) dan kedua, kesaksamaan bukan hanya mesti dilakukan tetapi ditanggapi mesti dilakukan (impartiality must appeared to be done).

Namun hakim telah menangguhkan pendengaran permohonan dan setelah 30 minit kemudian memutuskan sebulat suara menolak permohonan saya untuk mendapatkan jumlah jemaah hakim penuh kalau tak bolih 11 namun dipohon 9 orang. Kesemua ditolak walaupun tiada bantahan dari pihak Peguam Negara (Tan Sri Ghani Patail) dan peguam YB DR Zambry.

Penolakan permohonan saya oleh 5 orang hakim tersebut juga adalah tanpa sebab dan hujah.

Maka perbicaraan rayuan diteruskan dan memakan masa hampir enam jam setengah sehingga pukul 6.30ptg.

Di paparkan di sini sedutan dari laporan dan pandangan Peguam Sdr Mohamed Hanipa Maidin untuk pengetahuan pembaca. Saya masih menunggu tarikh dari mahkamah persekutuan untuk mendengar keputusan perbicaraan rayuan kes ini. Sila amati dan doakan!

SULTAN TIADA KUASA MEMECAT NIZAR

OLEH : MOHAMED HANIPA MAIDIN

“ Tunjukkan mana-mana peruntukkan di dalam Perlembagaan Perak yang memberi kuasa kepada Y.M Sultan Perak untuk memecat Nizar sebagai Menteri Besar ( MB ) Perak yang sah”. Itulah intipati hujah pasukan peguam Nizar semasa berhujah di Mahkamah Persekutuan , Putrajaya pada 5 November yang lalu.

Peguam Zambry dan Peguam Negara berhujah bahawa Zambry adalah MB yang sah kerana beliau telah dilantik oleh Y.M Sultan Perak di bawah Perkara 16 ( 2 ) Perlembagaan Negeri Perak. Peguam Nizar pula berhujah sebelum Zambry boleh mendakwa dia adalah MB Perak yang sah beliau perlu membuktikan terlebih dahulu bahawa jawatan MB yang disandang oleh Nizar telah dikosongkan ataupun Nizar telah dipecat secara sah berdasarkan Perlembagaan Negeri Perak.

Sepertimana yang dikatakan oleh Harley CJ ( Borneo ) di dalam kes Stephen Kalang Ningkan v Tun Abang Haji Openg and Tawi Sli ( 1966 ) 2 MLJ 187 , terdapat dua keadaan di mana Governor ( atau Sultan ) mempunyai bidibicara iaitu (a) dalam isu pelantikan MB dan ( b ) enggan bersetuju untuk membubarkan Dewan Undangan Negeri ( DUN ) .

Harley CJ seterusnya berkata “ As regards to ( a ) , nobody could be so foolish to suggest that a Governor could appoint a second Chief Minister while there was still one in office..” ( Terjemahan : “Berkenaan ( a ) , tiada orang yang terlalu bodoh untuk mencadangkan bahawa Governor boleh melantik MB yang kedua jika MB yang pertama masih memegang jawatan tersebut.” )

Apa yang jelas sehingga 5 November 2009 Zambry masih tidak dapat membuktikan bahawa kerusi MB yang Nizar pegang telah dikosongkan atau Nizar telah dipecat secara sah oleh Sultan Perak.

Peguam Zambry dan Peguam Negara berhujah bahawa memandangkan Nizar telah memohon secara betulis pada 5.2.2009 kepada Sultan bagi pembubaran DUN Perak di bawah Artikel 16 ( 6 ) Perlembagaan Perak dan memandangkan Sultan enggan menggunakan budibicaranya untuk membubar DUN Perak maka Nizar dan barisan exconya hendaklah meletakkan jawatan berdasarkan peruntukkan itu.

Peguam Zambry dan Peguam Negara juga berhujah bahawa di dalam surat Nizar kepada Sultan bertarikh 5.2.2009 itu Nizar mengatakan jumlah kerusi BN dan PR adalah sama banyak iaitu masing-masing 28 kerusi kerana kerusi tiga ADUN yang melompat telah diisytiharkan kosong oleh Speaker. Peguam Zambry dan Peguam Negara berhujah jika pun jumlah kerusi BN dan PR adalah sama iaitu 28 Nizar masih lagi tewas jika undi tidak percaya diadakan kerana kerusi PR sebanyak 28 itu termasuk kerusi speaker maka jika undian dibuat speaker tidak boleh mengundi maka PR hanya boleh dapat 27 undi sahaja.

Peguam Nizar menjawab sebelum Artikel 16 ( 6 ) hendak digunakan oleh Zambry mestilah terlebih dahulu dibuktikan bahawa Nizar telah kehilangan kepercayaan oleh Adun –Adun dan bagi menentukan hal tersebut perlu diadakah sidang dewan bagi para Adun membawa undi tidak percaya kepada Nizar. Di dalam kes ini adalah jelas tiada sebarang undi tidak percaya telah diambil dari mana-mana sidang Dun. Oleh itu prasyarat Perkara 16 ( 6 ) tidak dipenuhi di dalam kes ini.

Peguam Nizar juga berhujah bahawa berdasarkan sejarah negara ini undi tidak percaya yang dibuat di dalam sidang dewan pernah berlaku di dalam kes di Trengganu pada tahun 1961. Pada tahun 1959, PAS berjaya membentuk Kerajaan di Trengganu dan MB yang dilantik adalah Y.B Daud Samad. Pada 26/10/1961 Ketua Penerangan Umno Tuan Syed Jaafar Albar telah mengumumkan bahawa Perikatan telah menjadi parti majoriti kerana 3 orang Adun PAS dan 3 orang Adun Parti Negara telah melompat menyertai Umno.

Pada 30/10/1961 undi tidak percaya dibuat di dalam Dun Trengganu ke atas MB , Daud Samad. Selepas undi tidak percaya Daud Samad telah meminta Sultan Trengganu membubarkan Dun Trengganu namun Sultan enggan berbuat demikian. Sultan kemudiannya melantik Ibrahim Fikri dari Perikatan sebagai MB yang baru.

Jelas Sultan hanya bertindak selepas undi tidak percaya dibuat di dalam sidang dewan.

Mengenai hujah Zambry bahawa Nizar masih lagi tewas jika undi tidak percaya diadakan kerana kerusi PR sebanyak 28 itu termasuk kerusi speaker dan memandangkan speaker tidak boleh mengundi maka Nizar akan kalah jika undi dibuat peguam Nizar menjawab seperti berikut : Ya, benar speaker , Sivakumar tidak boleh mengundi tetapi jika benar-benar ada sidang Dun untuk diambil undi tidak percaya kepada Nizar apakah yang menghalang untuk Sivakumar meletak jawatan speaker dan menjadi ADUN biasa dan seterusnya mengundi. Tidakkah waktu itu kedudukan PR dan BN adalah 28 : 28. Sudah tentu jika BN terlalu bodoh melantik Adun mereka sebagai speaker sebagai ganti Sivakumar maka kerusi BN akan berkurang sebanyk 27 dan PR pula mempunyai 28 kerusi.

Peguam Nizar juga berhujah apabila Nizar enggan meletakkan jawatan adakah Sultan ada kuasa memecat beliau. Peguam Zambry dan Peguam Negara kata Sultan ada kuasa. . Peguam Nizar menjawab sila tunjukkan peruntukkan mana yang memberi kuasa itu. Peguam Zambry kata meskipun tiada peruntukkan khusus Sultan dianggap mempunyai kuasa itu ( deemed to have such a power ).

Peguam Nizar menjawab mestilah ada satu peruntukkan anggapan ( deeming provision ) di dalam Perlembagaan Perak sebelum Sultan dianggap mempunyai kuasa itu.

Sebagai contoh hujah peguam Nizar terdapat peruntukkan anggapan di bawah Perkara 19 ( 1 ) di Bahagian 2 Perlembagaan Perak bahawa Sultan dianggap telah mengosongkan jawatannya jika baginda tidak hadir dalam tempoh yang lama di dalam sidang Dewan Negara dan ketidakhadiran untuk tempoh yang lama itu tanpa alasan yang mencukui atau alasan yang munasabah. Jelas sebelum jawatan Sultan itu boleh dinggap dikosongkan Perlembagaan Perak secara jelas memperuntukkan peruntukkan berkenaan anggapan tersebut.

Hal yang sama tidak berlaku di dalam kes pengosongan jawatan MB. Tiada peruntukkan yang menyatakan bahawa jika MB enggan meletakkan jawatan kerusi MB dianggap telah kosong. Tanpa peruntukkan penting itu bagaimanakah Mahkamah boleh membuat anggapan sepertimana yang dihujahkan oleh Peguam Zambry dan Peguam Negara.

Peguam Nizar menyatakan Perlembagaan Perak dengan secara jelas menyatakan di dalam Perkara 16 ( 7 ) Perlembagaan Perak bahawa tidak seperti mana exco yang dilantik atas kerelaann Sultan ( at his pleasure ) jawatan MB tidak dipegang atas kerelaan Sultan. Oleh itu tidak timbul Sultan boleh memecat Nizar sebagai MB Perak yang sah.

Hujah telah diberikan terpulanglah kepada lima orang Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan. Bagi 5 orang hakim itu saya ingin menukilkan nasihat Hakim Israel iaitu Ehud J yang menyatakan “ Apabila para hakim duduk untuk menghakimi, hakikatnya merekalah yang sedang dihakimi.” Ya, rakyat sedang menghakimi 5 orang hakim tersebut.

Does the picture now become clearer?

From Malaysia Today

So Musa Hassan put into place a plan to get rid of Ramli Yusuff. And he fabricated charges against Ramli Yusuff so that his successor could be removed. And this would also mean Musa Hassan does not need to retire but can stay on as IGP.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin 

After Tan Sri Rahim (Noor) entered the lockup area, he stopped somewhere near the wooden door. He then lifted his fingers to his lips and raised both his hands to his eyes signalling to the person in front of him.”

“There were police officers standing at the counter. They were ASP Rodwan (Mohd Yusof) and Dato' Ramli (Yusuff). I cannot remember the others. I cannot remember whether there was any response to Tan Sri Rahim’s signal from the officers in front of him.”

“Not long after that, Tan Sri Rahim straight away headed towards the passage leading towards the cell on the left. He was walking at normal pace. I followed Tan Sri Rahim behind.”

“When I reached the entrance to the passage leading to the cell, I did not see Tan Sri Rahim anymore. Then I heard a voice saying, “Jangan pukul saya” (Don’t beat me) in Malay.”

“I was already in the passage. Spontaneously, I rushed into the cell. The first cell on the left. It is cell number six.”

“I rushed in and grabbed his (Rahim’s) belt with my (right) hand, from behind, and pulled him towards me. With my left hand, I held the bar of the cell door. Dato' Ramli assisted me.”

“Dato' Ramli was in the cell on Tan Sri Rahim’s right. He was assisting me by pushing him (Rahim) out of the cell. We managed to get Tan Sri Rahim out of the cell and then I took him out of the lockup. And then both of us went up to the 30th floor.”

“There were a few meetings held. Finally, there was a meeting between Tan Sri Rahim and a few others and myself. At that meeting, it was decided that Dato' Seri Anwar (Ibrahim) is to be arrested under the Internal Security Act. There was no discussion regarding what happened to Dato' Seri Anwar in the cell.”

Read more here