Listen to soft instrumental music for 15 to 20 mins before bed to calm the emotions and have a restful night . . .
Again, the court can rule that there was no dissolution of the state assembly since the Governor was not advised by the CM to consent to the dissolution of the state assembly. FULL STOP!
Surat Shafie Pada TYT Minta Bubar DUN Tidak Sah
Justiciability concerns the limits upon legal issues over which a court can exercise its judicial authority.
It includes, but is not limited to, the legal concept of standing, which is used to determine if the party bringing the suit is a party appropriate to establishing whether an actual adversarial issue exists.
Essentially, justiciability seeks to address whether a court possesses the ability to provide adequate resolution of the dispute; where a court believes that it cannot offer such a final determination, the matter is not justiciable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justiciability
Given the fact that elections are not due yet and the fact that the novel Corona virus pandemic is far from over, the CM should not have advised the Governor to consent to the dissolution of the state assembly.
Given the fact that elections are not due yet and the fact that the novel Corona virus pandemic is far from over, the Governor should have withheld consent for the dissolution of the state assembly.
The only point in favour of the Opposition: special circumstances based on the novel Corona virus pandemic.
The High Court can rule on Aug 17 that it has jurisdiction to hear the Sabah case i.e. it’s justiciable.
After that, the court can rule in favour of the Plaintiff.
If so, it will be a landmark ruling.
The issue can go to the state assembly, the proper Forum.
Unfortunately, our lawyers are not very good as they root for letter of the law ONLY, and not the spirit of the law as well.
Our courts are also not noted for novel developments in law.
When is the last time that you heard about landmark rulings by our courts?
The 7/11 ruling by the High Court was a terrible one. Any first year law student in England can do better.
The so-called Melayu in Malaya can’t fathom rule of law, the basis of the Constitution.
That’s why they charged the LTTE 12.
The “Melayu” types should be banned from the police, AGC and the judiciary.
Letter of the law types, as implied by CJ Richard Malanjum in his farewell address.
He’s one of two Witnesses.
[08/08, 2:49 a.m.] LDJ:
Singapore held its general election recently.
[08/08, 2:53 a.m.] JF:
Yes. The elections were due in Singapore. In Sabah, the elections are not due.
Tidak sama.
The only point in favour of the Opposition: special circumstances based on the novel Corona virus pandemic. In India, for example, the supreme court would have ruled in favour of the Opposition without violating the Doctrine of Separation of Powers.
It’s clear the Governor should not have consented to the dissolution of the state assembly.
He should have withheld consent.
No doubt he was “improperly advised” and the Governor did not properly exercise his discretion.
However, the court may not stress on these two aspects.
The Doctrine of Separation of Powers presides over the legislature, executive and judiciary.
No court can go against a head of state performing his constitutional role. The head of state can ignore the Perak case law and SDs.
SDs provide no proof. The proper forum is the state assembly, not the Istana, Perak case law or no Perak case law.
If “improperly advised”, CV-19 must be cited as special circumstances.
Only the CM can advise the head of state on the dissolution of the state assembly. It’s not a must that the head of state withhold consent for the dissolution of the state assembly but in this case we have CV-19.
The court, in this case, can only rule on the Constitution by way of a Declaration on points of law if an Originating Summons is filed. This is not a remedy.
No court will injunct the gov’t or consider conspiracy theories.
Having said that, did lawyers for the Opposition raise Article 8 — no discrimination — and not being provided a Hearing on the 33 SDs?
According to media reports, the Opposition was not allowed to proceed to the Istana before or/on 30 July. This may be because they had no audience with the head of state.
According to media reports, two Federal Ministers visited the Istana on the 33 SDs.
Read further here . . .
Those above 40 years old should go for medical review every two years.
I can only think of The Edge, from recent memory, which won a judicial review Application before GE14.
Perak case law irrelevant in the appointment of CM immediately after snap election, it must be based on SPR List.
FernzTheGreat 
3 thoughts on “Supreme court of India would have stopped snap Sabah elections”