Day +1043 : Calculation of judicial impartiality

I am fine today.

On Monday, Justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim proclaimed ousted Pakatan Rakyat Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as the rightful Perak menteri besar. The BN Zambry's application for a stay of proceedings pending an appeal was also rejected by the court.

On Tuesday, Zambry applied a stay of order and it was granted through an extraordinary singe-judge Court of Appeal. It is extraordinary in the sense that the application would normally be heard by a panel of three judges. (I am learning :-))

On Wednesday, Nizar applied to set aside the stay of order, and MalaysiaKini reported the following:

Unlike Zambry's application yesterday which was given the special treatment with the Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail's presence and counsel Cecil Abraham along with Umno lawyers Mohd Hafarizam Harun and Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin, managing to have the application heard immediately, the rival menteri besar's application to get an early hearing date was only known close to 5pm

The hearing date to set aside the stay of order was fixed on next Monday, which is 5 days from the date of application.

We can perform a very simple calculation to measure the judicial impartially in term of “favourism factor, F” which simply means that how many times one is favoured against the other.

The calculation is based on the duration at which the case is heard upon application.

Let the time taken by the court to hear Zambry application = Zt

Le the time taken by the court to hear Nizar application = Nt

Based on the report, Zt = 0 second and Nt = 432000 seconds (5 days x 24 hours x 60 minutes x 60 seconds)

We have, F = Nt/Zt = 432000/0.

If you calculate this using computer, you will encounter an exception – divide by zero! This implied that F is too huge that even a computer is unable to handle. Your calculator would probably give you the same error message.

However, human is smarter than the computer and knows that anything which is divided by zero will have an answer of ∞ (infinity).

With this we can conclude that F is equal to infinity and in simple English term, we say that “Zambry is favoured infinite number of times over Nizar.”

With such a huge factor of favourism creeping into a judiciary organ, how can we be convinced that judiciary impartiality exists? This reinforces my claim that this is a land of corruption and rulelessness.

While handling down his judgment on Monday, Justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim said one of the Zambry witnesses was partisan witness, but how many judges are partisan judges?

I read from newspaper that Justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim is a just judge who wouldn’t consider the political background of plaintiffs and defendants. With him, at least we see a dim ray of light shining in our judiciary system.

See you next post :-)