Tuesday, August 4, 2015

Clare Brown's extradition will require providing UK ALL details on the 1 MDB issue;and at the highest levels :Her Majesty's Secret Services likely to be involved

Malaysia is a Category 2 state under the UK's Extradition Act and hence an extradition request must be made to the Secretary of State, and not the UK police. The involvement of the UK's intelligence services into the whole issue is guaranteed given that  it is the Secretary of State who must decide if the request is valid . He is also in charge of the intelligence services (including Brian Lord's former employer the  GCHQ)
and given the issues and persons involved   ,it is more likely than not that input from  the intelligence services will be required.
The process involves the following:

Extradition from UK: process under Part 2 of the  Extradition Act 2003 (UK)

Part of 2 of the act covers category 2 territories, which include Malaysia.
Requests from these states need decisions by both the Secretary of State and the courts. The Secretary of State has no influence over the time it takes for a case to clear the judicial stages, and time a case takes to complete can vary depending on how complex the case is.
The extradition process to these territories follows these steps:
  1. an extradition request is made to the Secretary of State
  2. the Secretary of State issues a certificate and sends request to court (if request is valid)
  3. preliminary hearing
  4. extradition hearing
  5. Secretary of State decides on extradition 
After the extradition hearing and the Secretary of State’s decision a requested person may be able to appeal to the High Court, and if that is unsuccessful, to the Supreme Court.

Extradition requests: what’s required

When an extradition request is made to the Secretary of State if it’s ‘valid’, the Secretary of State will issue a certificate and send the request to the court.
The request will be valid if it is for a person accused or convicted of an offence, and if it’s made by an appropriate authority, such as a diplomatic or consular representative.

Documents needed to make a request

Generally the information accompanying a request needs to include:
  • details of the person
  • details of the offence of which they are accused or convicted
  • if the person is accused of an offence - a warrant for their arrest or provisional arrest (or a duly authenticated copy)
  • if someone is unlawfully at large after conviction of an offence – a certificate of the conviction and sentence (or a duly authenticated copy), or for provisional arrest, details of the conviction
  • evidence or information that justifies the issue of a warrant for arrest in the UK, within the jurisdiction of a judge of the court that would hold the extradition hearing
If the court is satisfied that enough information has been supplied, an arrest warrant can be issued.
Requesting states are advised to submit an initial draft request to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), so that any potential problems can be resolved.

END


Team Jho Low Is Now A Liability -Will Its Members Be C4ed?

by Ganesh Sahathevan
Updated on 15 July 2023

Malaysia's history suggests that when a person becomes a political liability, they will get blown-up, ltiterally circumstances demand it.

Team Jho Low seem likely candidates. 
                                               From The Edge






                                            The Law Office Of Tiffany Heah 



                                            Seet Li Lin


SEE ALSO 

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Art 145(6) is a saving provision & not Cecil Sheridan's guarantee of tenure as Apandi seems to believe

by Ganesh Sahathevan
It has been reported that the newly appointed Attorney General of Malaysia, Tan Sri Apandi Ali , has said with regards the dismissal of his predecessor Tan Sri Ghani Patail:

"Under the existing Clause (5) of Article 145, the Attorney-General holds office during the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong," - See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/ganis-removal-was-constitutional-says-new-a-g#sthash.naNIQs3G.dpuf
"Under the existing Clause (5) of Article 145, the Attorney-General holds office during the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Clause (6) of Article 145 of the Federal Constitution does not apply as it is a savings provision which only applied to the incumbent Attorney-General at the material time when the amended Article 145 came into force. "This is clearly stated in Clause (6) of Article 145. The Attorney-General at the time was Cecil M. Sheridan who served as Attorney-General from 1959 to 1963."
While Englishman  are known to be  eccentric  , it does seem  a bit over the top even for them  to have inserted in the founding constitution of a country  provision to guarantee the  tenure of any one man. It is therefore more likely than not that  Clause (6) of Article 145  was drafted so as to ensure that not merely  Sheridan ,but all  his successors,  enjoyed the same degree of independence that he did. In fact, Clause (5) of Article 145  states :


(5) Subject to Clause (6), the Attorney General shall hold office during the
pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and may at any time resign his office and,
unless he is a member of the Cabinet, shall receive such remuneration as the Yang
di-Pertuan Agong may determine.
That Clause (5) should forever be read subject to Clause (6) when Clause (6) was intended to be a one-off, applicable to just one man,
seem incongruous with the vary nature of the Constitution , ie a document that is meant to exist in perpetuity as the country's primary or seminal source of law.

It does seem as  if  Patail's removal or dismissal (Apandi confirms this) is unlawful.The consequences are going to be interesting.
END

Friday, July 10, 2015

Agong,Malay Rulers, And Their Powers To Dismiss A Sitting Prime Minister-More

by Ganesh Sahathevan


The following extracts from a paper by Anne Twomey, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Sydney:

The rule of law is also an important principle. It potentially supports the dismissal of a Prime Minister who persists in serious breaches of the law or the Constitution. It also would potentially permit a Governor-General to decline to act upon advice to commit a manifest breach of the Constitution or of a law. However, the application of this principle is often tempered by another principle, the separation of powers and the role of the judiciary in determining legality. Where the judiciary may not determine legality, because the matter is not justiciable, or where the breach of the rule of law is both serious and uncontestable or uncontested, then an exercise of a reserve power to reject advice or to seek new advisers, may be warranted.

The above is to be read in conjunction with the  earlier post  below ,and taken together one can see ever more clearly that the Agong and Malay Rulers have a duty born of culture and tradition  to at least consider using their powers to dismiss a sitting prime minister when the situation warrants it.In the current Malaysian context,there is a case where. among other issues of good governance,  the rule of law is being ignored in that a corporation headed by the prime minister is refusing to cooperate with a number of statutory bodies appointed to investigate that corporation:


The Agong can dismiss the Prime Minister , the Malay Rulers have powers they are duty bound to exercise

Thursday, July 9, 2015

The Agong can dismiss the Prime Minister , the Malay Rulers have powers they are duty bound to exercise

by Ganesh Sahathevan*

In considering Constitutional Law it is important that one does not dismiss the cultural, religious and other societal factors that provide the context within which constitutional matters are decided in reality.

To appreciate the full extent power of Malaysia's Malay Rulers, the sultans of the respective states, and the King, or Agong, who they choose from among themselves to rule the country in turn, one needs to appreciate that the rulers occupy a paramount place in the Malay community and in the Islamic faith that all Malays are at least nominally adherents.

Therefore, while nominally constitutional monarchs the rulers have a cultural influence that is probably in excess of any strict legal reading of the constitutions of the Malaysian states and the federal constitution.
The recent comments of the Crown Prince of Johor are a case in point.

To understand the extent of their powers an understanding of the legal basis underlying the dismissal of Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975 by the Governor-General Sir John Kerr, as representative of Queen Elizabeth in her capacity as Queen of Australia, can provide useful guidance.
To summarize that incident:

On 11 November 1975 the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, dismissed Gough Whitlam as Prime Minister .For the first time, an unelected vice-regal representative, the Governor-General, had removed from office a prime minister who had a majority in the House of Representatives.

Kerr's reasons  in his own words as follows:

It has been necessary for me to find a democratic and constitutional solution to the current crisis which will permit the people of Australia to decide as soon as possible what should be the outcome of the deadlock which developed over supply between the two Houses of Parliament and between the Government and Opposition parties. The only solution consistent with the constitution and with my oath of office and my responsibilities, authority and duty as Governor-General is to terminate the commission as Prime Minister of Mr Whitlam and to arrange for a caretaker government able to secure supply and willing to let the issue go to the people.

I should be surprised if the Law Officers expressed the view that there is no reserve power in the Governor-General to dismiss a Ministry which has been refused supply by the Parliament and to commission a Ministry, as a caretaker ministry which will secure supply and recommend a dissolution, including where appropriate a double dissolution. This is a matter on which my mind is quite clear and I am acting in accordance with my own clear view of the principles laid down by the Constitution and on the nature, powers and responsibility of my office.



While the Malaysian and Australian Constitutions are of course very different they are both based on the concept of a constitutional monarchy. The key phrase  in Kerr's reasoning is the reference to reserve powers and it would be fair to say that these powers are present in the Malaysian Constitution.

In the Malaysian context it is important to keep in mind the following that makes Malaysia very different from Australia:
a) Malaysia was formed by agreement of the rulers,and so it is at least open to argument that they can choose to take their states out of the federation if they so wish.

b) The Malaysian Prime Minister cannot dismiss the Agong, while the Australian Prime Minister has at least the power to dismiss the Queen's representative.

c) Culturally, the majority Malays, unlike Australians and even the British,  would not object to their rulers speaking on any matter , including the government of the day. Again there is the recent example of the Johor Crown Prince.

Taking these few factors alone, and more extensive research will probably find more, the  Agong and the Malay Rulers would, prima facie, appear to possess reserve powers greater than that of the Australian Governor-General (who represents the Queen as head of state). It follows then that they have a responsibility to exercise that power in times of crisis where a change of at least prime minister is necessary. Readers,can decide for themselves if there is at this point of time in Malaysia's history such a crisis, requiring the rulers to intervene.
END
*BEc,LLB (Monash), LLM (Sydney)


Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Tharman & Singapore's MAS need to explain why the BSI/1 MDB investigation has been handed over to Zeti

The facts are these.


A)Bank Negara has admitted receiving a report from the Monetary Authority Singapore  with regards 1 MDB's account at BSI Bank SIngapore, and admitted that it is a matter for Malaysia's enforcement agencies.


B) BN's admission follows a Sarawak Report story abut the laundering of some USD 860 million via the accounts of BSI Bank's branch in Singapore.Part of the story reads:

The BSI records then detail a series of huge money transfers from Good Star Limited’s account in Zurich (which had directly received $700 million plus $160 million from 1MDB) into this new ADKMIC account over the following two years.
According to the figures, which the bank has submitted to the Singapore authorities, 7 separate payments were made from the Good Star Limited account at RBS Coutts Bank, Zurich into Jho Low’s beneficially owned Abu Dhabi-Kuwait-Malaysia Investment Corporation Account No 6C02395 between 28th June 2011 and 4th September 2013. These payments  totalled USD$528,956.027.05.
The money trail from Good Star led to Jho Low's account at BSI Singapore.
The money trail from Good Star led to Jho Low’s account at BSI Singapore.
The BSI Bank Singapore record shows that the account was then closed by Jho Low on 18th February 2014, just a fortnight after the final payment from Good Star Limited.

The Sarawak Report story ha not been denied by anyone so left standing is the allegation that some USD 860 million has been laundered via BSI and then spirited away to destinations unknown .That the MAS is not investigating the issue is puzzling, to say the least.

Sunday, May 24, 2015

History of India's Jewish beauty queens:Compare this to Chris Bowen's "the genius of Australian multiculturalism"

NOTE 
This story is one of many similar stories of the world's  races and cultures
mixing in Asia,in ways that have   Australian multiculturalist panting with excitement  at the very thought.
Still, despite this few of us  are in favour of multiculturalism. We know the dangers, often having lived through them. Yet, we have to suffer the pain of hearing  the likes of Chris Bowen, the former minister for immigration ,declaring the "genius of multiculturalism".worse have people like him tell us we simply do not understand the nature of a "true" multicultural society.

Excerpt 
Although Naqi Jahan is considered Jewish because of her Jewish mother, she was raised as a Muslim, as her mother Esther married a popular Muslim film actor of those times, Kumar ne Syed Hasan Ali. Today their son, Haider Ali, is a successful character artist in Bollywood.

History of India's Jewish beauty queens 

In spite of numerical insignificance of Jews in India’s huge population, their women went on to represent country internationally in several beauty pageants 
Dr. Navras Jaat Aafreedi, Tazpit 

Given the fact that Jewish beauty has been celebrated in history, it comes as no surprise that in spite of the numerical insignificance of Jews in India’s huge population, 5,000 in the total Indian population of 1.3 billion, their women went on to represent the country internationally at a number of beauty pageants.

 
In fact, they were the first to do so, as the very first Miss India was Jewish. The first Miss India pageant in 1947 was organized by Femina, a Times of India publication, and the beauty who was crowned as Miss India was a Baghdadi Jewess, Esther Victoria Abraham (1916-2006), who later became popular as a successful film actress with the pseudonym Pramila.


Two decades later, on March 12, 1967, her daughter Naqi Jahan, who was chosen Miss India in the pageant organized by the popular magazine Eve’s Weekly that year, became the first to represent India at the Queen of the Pacific Quest beauty pageant held in Melbourne, Australia.


Although Naqi Jahan is considered Jewish because of her Jewish mother, she was raised as a Muslim, as her mother Esther married a popular Muslim film actor of those times, Kumar ne Syed Hasan Ali. Today their son, Haider Ali, is a successful character artist in Bollywood.

 

The honor of being the first Indian to participate in the Miss World pageant went to Fleur Ezekiel, a member of the Bene Israel community, numerically the largest of the three Jewish communities in India. She represented India in the Miss World pageant of 1959.

 

The mother of the Roy Kapur brothers, Siddharth, Kunal and Aditya, who are making waves in Bollywood today, was Miss India 1972, Salome Aaron. Aaron, a ballroom dancer, later went on to make a career for herself as a film choreographer in Bollywood.

 

Of her three sons she had with her Hindu husband, the eldest, Siddharth, has found great success as the managing director of a film company, which is the joint venture of Disney and UTV in India, while the younger two, Kunal and Aditya, have become successful actors.

 

It is interesting to note that her youngest son, Aditya Roy Kapur, is the second male lead in the only second Indian film to be released simultaneously in India and Israel, "Yeh Jawaani hai Deewani."

 

The author is a scholar of Indo-Judaic Studies, an assistant professor of History at Gautam Buddha University, India

Photo courtesy of Tazpit News Agency

Esther Victoria Abraham, winner of first Miss India pageant in 1947Photo courtesy of Tazpit News Agency
Salome Aaron, Miss India 1972 Photo courtesy of Tazpit News Agency
Salome Aaron, Miss India 1972 Photo courtesy of Tazpit News Agency
Fleur Ezekiel, first Indian to participate in Miss World pageant Photo courtesy of Tazpit News Agency
Fleur Ezekiel, first Indian to participate in Miss World pageant Photo courtesy of Tazpit News Agency

 http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4402232,00.html