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 Malaysian Reserve

                                            The Law Office Of Tiffany Heah 

                                            Seet Li Lin

SEE ALSO 

Jho Low's People - A Life In The Day

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

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

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)