Search This Blog

Loading...

Friday, August 6, 2010

Election Offences Act: Did Najib commit general bribery? Judge for yourself

Judge Azahar threw out Zaid's Ibrahim election petition to invalidate the result of the recent Hulu Selangor "buy election". Is his judgement based on facts and true justice. Malaysians, you read the Election Offences Act below and even simple layman can judge/conclude that general bribery, an election offence have been committed by Najib and Judge Azahar should allow Zaid's election petition:

Election Offences Act 1954 Sections 32(a) and 32(c):

Section 32, titled "Avoidance of election on election petition," reads:

"The election of a candidate at any election shall be declared to be void on an election petition on any of the following only which may be proved to the satisfaction of the Election Judge:

a. That general bribery, general treating or general intimidation have so extensively prevailed that they may be reasonably supposed to have affected the result of the election; and,

c. That a corrupt practice or illegal practice was committed in connection with the election by the candidate or with his knowledge or consent, or by any agent of the candidate.

Judge Azahar background

Azahar was the prosecutor accused of fabricating false evidence against Anwar Ibrahim during the infamous Anwar corruption trial a decade ago, which was resoundingly condemned around the world as a heinous travesty of justice and outright political persecution? This is an accusation that Azahar was not known to have denied.

Azahar was also the judge who handed out the atrociously "double-standard" judgment in the Perak Speaker vs Speaker case on Sept 8, 2009.

In that judgment over the chaotic state assembly sitting of May 7,2009, he rejected Pakatan speaker Sivakumar's complaints against BN speaker Ganesan on grounds that he had no jurisdiction to intervene into affairs of the assembly.

But he failed to realise that by declaring Ganesan's election as speaker during the same assembly sitting as a lawful act, he was in fact committing the same intervention he said he wanted to avoid in the first place. (Azahar's self-contradiction was so blatant that it earned the title of "Speaker vs Speaker: Judge Azahar slapping his own face?" for an article in Kim Quek's book, 'The March to Putrajaya')

No comments: