The Star
BY LISA GOH
“When the two-member panel proceeded to hear the recusal application, Section 74(1) of the Court of Judicature Act (CJA) was offended,” he said in his written judgement read out by Federal Court deputy registrar Surita Budin Tuesday.
Justice Malanjum added that all other decisions and orders subsequent to the impugned decision and order by the same panel was thereby set aside as well.
On Nov 7, last year, the Shah Alam High Court granted Raja Petra’s habeas corpus application to be released from detention under the Internal Security Act.
The Home Minister, the sole respondent in the case, appealed against the decision, and it was heard before Justices Nik Hashim, Paul and Zulkefli on Feb 11.
Counsel for Raja Petra, Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, then applied to recuse Justice Augustine on grounds that “there might be a real danger of bias on the part of the learned judge since Raja Petra was critical of him in his website in 2001”.
On Feb 17, when Raja Petra’a recusal application came up for hearing, Justice Paul voluntarily requested to be excused from hearing it, and left the bench.
The remaining judges proceeded to hear the application despite the objection by Malik Imtiaz that it was unconstitutional for the panel to do so.
The application was summarily dismissed, as the bench held the view that the basis of the recusal application was “far-fetched and ludicrous”.
It also held that the proceeding had already commenced on Feb 11, in which Justice Paul had participated in allowing the application for adjournment by Raja Petra to enable him to file the formal recusal application.
The court, upon dismissing the recusal application, then invited back Justice Paul to the bench, and it later dismissed Raja Petra’s applications to have a quorum of five or seven judges to hear the appeal and two applications to adduce further evidence in the case.
On Feb 20, Raja Petra filed an application under Rule 137 of the CJA to review the Federal Court’s decision in dismissing his application to recuse Justice Paul.
In his judgement, Justice Malanjum added that ordinarily, the sitting of a two-member panel was contrary to Section 74(1) of the CJA which stipulated that “every proceeding in the Federal Court shall be heard and disposed of by three Judges or such greater uneven number of Judges”.
“However, the reasons given in their judgment as indicated above the two-member panel ruled that they could continue with the hearing.
“With respect, we do not think it is tenable to say that the hearing had commenced just because an application for adjournment was made and allowed,” he said.
The Federal Court registry will fix a new date to hear the applications afresh.
BY LISA GOH
PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has set aside its earlier decision in dismissing Malaysia Today editor Raja Petra Raja Kamarudin’s application to recuse Justice S. Augustine Paul from hearing his habeas corpus appeal.
Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Justice Richard Malanjum ruled that there had been a “quorum failure” when a panel of only two Federal Court judges - Justices Nik Hashim Nik Ab Rahman and Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin - dismissed Raja Petra’s application to recuse Justice Paul on Feb 17.
Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Justice Richard Malanjum ruled that there had been a “quorum failure” when a panel of only two Federal Court judges - Justices Nik Hashim Nik Ab Rahman and Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin - dismissed Raja Petra’s application to recuse Justice Paul on Feb 17.
“When the two-member panel proceeded to hear the recusal application, Section 74(1) of the Court of Judicature Act (CJA) was offended,” he said in his written judgement read out by Federal Court deputy registrar Surita Budin Tuesday.
Justice Malanjum added that all other decisions and orders subsequent to the impugned decision and order by the same panel was thereby set aside as well.
On Nov 7, last year, the Shah Alam High Court granted Raja Petra’s habeas corpus application to be released from detention under the Internal Security Act.
The Home Minister, the sole respondent in the case, appealed against the decision, and it was heard before Justices Nik Hashim, Paul and Zulkefli on Feb 11.
Counsel for Raja Petra, Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, then applied to recuse Justice Augustine on grounds that “there might be a real danger of bias on the part of the learned judge since Raja Petra was critical of him in his website in 2001”.
On Feb 17, when Raja Petra’a recusal application came up for hearing, Justice Paul voluntarily requested to be excused from hearing it, and left the bench.
The remaining judges proceeded to hear the application despite the objection by Malik Imtiaz that it was unconstitutional for the panel to do so.
The application was summarily dismissed, as the bench held the view that the basis of the recusal application was “far-fetched and ludicrous”.
It also held that the proceeding had already commenced on Feb 11, in which Justice Paul had participated in allowing the application for adjournment by Raja Petra to enable him to file the formal recusal application.
The court, upon dismissing the recusal application, then invited back Justice Paul to the bench, and it later dismissed Raja Petra’s applications to have a quorum of five or seven judges to hear the appeal and two applications to adduce further evidence in the case.
On Feb 20, Raja Petra filed an application under Rule 137 of the CJA to review the Federal Court’s decision in dismissing his application to recuse Justice Paul.
In his judgement, Justice Malanjum added that ordinarily, the sitting of a two-member panel was contrary to Section 74(1) of the CJA which stipulated that “every proceeding in the Federal Court shall be heard and disposed of by three Judges or such greater uneven number of Judges”.
“However, the reasons given in their judgment as indicated above the two-member panel ruled that they could continue with the hearing.
“With respect, we do not think it is tenable to say that the hearing had commenced just because an application for adjournment was made and allowed,” he said.
The Federal Court registry will fix a new date to hear the applications afresh.
No comments:
Post a Comment