YB Nizar journey of justice

Bite ur finger.Behind the scene, Nizar's case decision was more to preserved policy rather than to preserved the LAW. On basis that Perak State will be more chaos, the status of contract that already signed, the budget, the decision in meeting etc. No dissenting judgment. Ijma'!. This is what we have been discussing in class.

Three question been raised up by Nizar:

1. Whether the MB’s post is vacant when he did not resign; none of his peers had passed a vote of no confidence against him; he had asked the Sultan to dissolve the state assembly and start the process for fresh elections and was rejected.

2. Who decides that he has lost the confidence of the state assembly?

3. Who has the right to sack him if he refuses to resign?

Answer:

• Yes. (To quote: “The answer to the first question will be in the affirmative;)

• Yes. (“As for the second question, our answer is that under Article XVI(6) the question of confidence in the MB may be determined by means other than a vote of no-confidence in the LA;”)

• Yes. (“As for the third question our answer is that if the MB refuses to tender the resignation of the Executive Council under Article XVI(6) the MB and the Executive Council members are deemed to have vacated their respective offices.”)

Chief Judge of Malaya Arifin. “However, we would add that this is by no means the end of the matter, as it is always open to the appellant [Nizar] to bring a vote of no confidence against the respondent [Zambry] in the LA [Legislative Assembly] or make a representation to HRH [His Royal Highness the Sultan of Perak] at any time if he thinks that the respondent does not enjoy the support of the majority of the members of the LA"

What is the biggest implication in Nizar's case decision? Finally, Royal voice –Sultan n Raja- being heard, have more authority and power. Don’t be surprise if Sultan can reject the Menteri Besar, so do can reject the PM if he thinks there is no confidence from the Dewan and rakyat . No more act on advice~ this is Federal Court Judgment by 5 judges with no dissent