A larger bench will offer better protection against the undue and powerful influence of Prime Minister Najib Razak.

Fed Crt refuses Nizar 11-man bench, only 5 to hear case

The Federal Court has only agreed to grant Pakatan Rakyat Menteri Besar Nizar Jamaluddin a five-member bench instead of the maximum 11 that he sought to hear his case against Umno’s Zambry Kadir.

“No reasons or explanations were given as to the refusal,” Nizar’s lawyer Leong Cheok Keng said in a statement.

Both Nizar and Zambry have gone to the courts for a decision on who should be the rightful chief minister of Perak.

Given the importance of the case which can lift the state from the economic and political rut it has fallen into, many Malaysians had also hoped for a 11-member bench.

A larger bench will offer better protection against the undue and powerful influence of Prime Minister Najib Razak.

The PM had engineered an unpopular coup d’etat in February that toppled the Pakatan Rakyat administration, replacing it with an Umno-BN lineup. But until now, Perakians are unhappy and still clamouring for fresh state-wide election to choose their own leaders.

“The refusal is most upsetting to all Malaysians who believe in the concept of a fair and impartial judiciary,” Leong said.

Federal Court should give reasons why it refused 11-man bench

Meanwhile, Nizar will submit a written appeal to the Federal Court to enlarge the panel and to ask the top court for its reasons in refusing an 11-member team.

“This is our client’s last avenue of appeal. If Nizar’s application for leave is dismissed by the five-man bench, this will be the end of the litigation,” said Leong.

“We therefore, in the interest of justice, fair play and good judicial governance, request that a full bench be empaneled to hear what will, most probably, be our country’s most important constitutional and landmark appeal.”

Malaysians have been shamed and angered by a string of highly controversial court decisions in relation to the Perak crisis. They point the finger at Najib for exerting pressure on the judiciary to support his political agenda.

Till now many top judges have failed to furnish written grounds of judgment for their shadowy rulings, which have been ridiculed and condemned by the legal fraternity itself.

“So long as there persists the appearance of bias, there can be no finality in the judgment of the highest court of the country,” Leong said.

SK

28/06/09