Friday 28 February 2014

TV3 vs Nizar - Justice in jeopardy ?

justice quotes

I'm publishing below a comment which was posted on my previous posting 'What is different now Your Honour?' in relation to a Court of Appeal decision a few days ago.

The comment by Jermaine Santiago certainly sheds more light into the widely discussed issue pertaining the impartiality of the learned Court of Appeal Judge, Justice Datuk  Mohammad Ariff in the case involving TV3 and Pas leader Nizar Jamaludin.

"TV3 should file a motion to the Court of Appeal to impugn the court’s decision of Feb 25, 2014 in the Nizar Jamaludin vs TV3 case.

This is because there is enough evidence to prove that the leader of the three-men bench Justice Datuk Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof was biased. Mohamad Ariff should have recused himself from hearing the case, but didn’t.

Here are the reasons why TV3 has a solid case:

1. Mohamad Ariff failed/refused to declare to parties concerned at the beginning of the appeal case that he was/still is a PAS member.
2. He was formerly the Legal Advisor for PAS
3. He enjoyed a working relationship with the plaintiff as they were both comrades in PAS.
4. Both Mohamad Ariff and Nizar contested in the 2004 General Election as PAS candidates.
5. Four years ago, Mohamad Ariff, then Judicial Commissioner recused himself from hearing the judicial review filed by former Perak Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin challenging the validity of his successor Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir’s appointment. He conveniently forgot to recuse himself this time.
6. As a leader of the three-men bench, he could influence the decision of the other two judges ((see OPINIONS OF THE LORDS IN THE PINOCHET EXTRADITION CASE INVOLVING LORD HOFFMAN)
7. He failed to carry out his duty without fear or favour in accordance to the oath he took as a judge.

This is going to be an explosive case." - Jermaine Santiago

The fact that the learned judge had, less than 10 years ago, stood as a PAS election candidate is good enough a reason for him to stay away/out from the above court case. Don't you think so?

p/s The legal experts engaged by TV3 doing their job or … ?



Azhar Abu Samah said...

Justice Mohamad Ariff should have recused himself - plain and simple!

Nur Afiqah Asmat said...

I have a question for the Chief Justice. Doesn't he do his homework when assigning judges to hear cases?

KY Tan said...

Both the Chief Justice and Mohammad Ariff should be investigated by the Anti-Corruption Commission.

VARUNA said...


“……Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made….”

1. This code of ethics may be cited as the Judges’ Code of Ethics 1994.

2. (1) This code of Ethics shall apply to a judge throughout the period of his service.

(2) The breach of any provision of this Code of Ethics may constitute a ground for the removal of a judge from office.

3. (1) A judge shall not -

(a) subordinate his judicial duties to his private interests;
(b) conduct himself in such manner as is likely to bring his private Interests into conflict with his judicial duties;
(c) conduct himself in any manner likely to cause a reasonable suspicion that -
(i) he has allowed his private interests to come into conflict with his judicial duties so as to impair his usefulness as a judge; or
(ii) he has used his judicial position for his personal advantage;
(d) conduct himself dishonestly or in such manner as to bring the Judiciary into disrepute or to bring discredit thereto;
(e) lack efficiency or industry;
(f) inordinately and without reasonable explanation delay in the disposal of cases, the delivery of decisions and the writing of grounds of judgment;
(g) refuse to obey a proper administrative order or refuse to comply with any statutory direction;
(h) absent himself from his court during office hours without reasonable excuse or without prior permission of the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal or the Chief Judge, as the case may be; and
(i) be a member of any political party or participate in any political activity.


- OK, I am no lawyer, but this whole affair as reported at the very least raised question as to whether or not there is a breach of paragraph 3 (1) (c) (i) and 3 (i) which in turn provide ground for paragraph 2. (2).

boom beach hacks said...

Hello, i think that i saw you visited my website so i came to “return the favor”.I am attempting to find things to enhance my site!I suppose its ok to use a few of your ideas!!