A lawyer for Pakatan Rakyat's Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin has raised a question as to why Barisan Nasional's Zambry Abd Kadir was granted a fasttrack stay order against the High Court ruling that the former is the legitimate Perak menteri besar.
Nizar was dealt a blow on Friday when it was announced that his application to set aside the stay order was postponed from May 18 to May 21 - the hearing date for Zambry's appeal.
Zambry and his executive council members have taken advantage of the stay order, granted by Court of Appeal Judge Ramli Ali, to resume duties as the menteri besar since Wednesday.
In a statement today, lawyer Leong Cheok Keng said he wanted to know from the Court of Appeal registry as to why Nizar's application was being "delayed consistently".
"(When) compared to Zambry's application, (it) was fixed for hearing and a decision made not more than 24 hours after the judgment of the High Court.
"Then, the hearing commenced within three hours of the filing and stay order pronounced within two hours of hearing," said Leong.
In contrast, Nizar had to wait a day before an original hearing date for his application to set aside the stay order was set for May 18.
"I also eagerly await the grounds of the one-man (instead of the conventional three-member) Court of Appeal panel for granting the stay order," added Leong.
Justice cannot be delayed
According to Leong, he only received a letter from the Court of Appeal registry at 4pm on Friday about the new date for the application to set aside Zambry's stay order.
"The apparent reason (given by the registry) was that the hearing of the appeal (by Zambry) is imminent and that my client's application for the discharge of the stay order might as well be adjourned and there is now no urgency to hear the same.
"Without explanation given by the court, the public will be left with the perception that the court is once again going out of its way to accommodate the appellant and putting my client at a disadvantage," he said.
Leong said that this case was unlike other civil cases and must be dealt with outmost urgency as it concerned public interest.
In his application, Nizar (above) is querying if Zambry had the right under Section 43 and 44 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 to obtain the stay of execution order, despite failing to provide a written application to the High Court which declared Nizar as the legitimate menteri besar.
On May 11, Zambry's lawyers's oral application for a stay was refused by justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim, who asked for a written application to be submitted.
Zambry subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal and obtained the stay order.
Malaysiakini
17/05/09
Nizar was dealt a blow on Friday when it was announced that his application to set aside the stay order was postponed from May 18 to May 21 - the hearing date for Zambry's appeal.
Zambry and his executive council members have taken advantage of the stay order, granted by Court of Appeal Judge Ramli Ali, to resume duties as the menteri besar since Wednesday.
In a statement today, lawyer Leong Cheok Keng said he wanted to know from the Court of Appeal registry as to why Nizar's application was being "delayed consistently".
"(When) compared to Zambry's application, (it) was fixed for hearing and a decision made not more than 24 hours after the judgment of the High Court.
"Then, the hearing commenced within three hours of the filing and stay order pronounced within two hours of hearing," said Leong.
In contrast, Nizar had to wait a day before an original hearing date for his application to set aside the stay order was set for May 18.
"I also eagerly await the grounds of the one-man (instead of the conventional three-member) Court of Appeal panel for granting the stay order," added Leong.
Justice cannot be delayed
According to Leong, he only received a letter from the Court of Appeal registry at 4pm on Friday about the new date for the application to set aside Zambry's stay order.
"The apparent reason (given by the registry) was that the hearing of the appeal (by Zambry) is imminent and that my client's application for the discharge of the stay order might as well be adjourned and there is now no urgency to hear the same.
"Without explanation given by the court, the public will be left with the perception that the court is once again going out of its way to accommodate the appellant and putting my client at a disadvantage," he said.
Leong said that this case was unlike other civil cases and must be dealt with outmost urgency as it concerned public interest.
In his application, Nizar (above) is querying if Zambry had the right under Section 43 and 44 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 to obtain the stay of execution order, despite failing to provide a written application to the High Court which declared Nizar as the legitimate menteri besar.
On May 11, Zambry's lawyers's oral application for a stay was refused by justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim, who asked for a written application to be submitted.
Zambry subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal and obtained the stay order.
Malaysiakini
17/05/09
ALL ARE CURIOUS OVER THE OBVIOUS
ReplyDeleteAren't certain things pretty obvious
When we all want all things to be serious
There'll be specific things made devious
Making the whole world wonder and be curious
(C) Samuel Goh Kim Eng - 170509
http://MotivationInMotion.blogspot.com
Sun. 17th May 2009.
My sincere advice to Nizars lawyers is to quickly hire the sevices of lawyer exemplaire and par excellence Datuk V.K.Lingam. Not only can he facilitate quick decisions by judges but also ensure correct verdict. Che Det, Vincent Tan and Tengku Adnan would vouch for V.K.'s impeccable record.
ReplyDelete