Upon further examination, the following observation merits consideration: Proponents of Anwar assert that the motion to disqualify him is time-barred, vexatious, and driven by political machinations, given Wathya Moorthy’s affiliations with Bersatu, a constituent of the Perikatan Nasional opposition coalition.
This assertion, however, constitutes not a defense but an implicit concession on Anwar's part. (Would be interesting to know who his lawyers are in this matter). It neither refutes the substance of the allegations nor contests the validity of the charge. Instead, it proffers a rationale that sidesteps substantive legal rebuttal, effectively amounting to a tacit admission on Anwar’s part.
Such maneuvering is emblematic of the Malaysian legal fraternity’s intricacies.
Notably, the applicant, Waytha Moorthy, has a documented history of submitting woefully inadequate, embarassing and frivolous legal arguments, as evidenced by his ill-fated drafting and representation of Malaysia’s indentured laborers and their descendants before a British court for compensation.
The outcome of that case serves as a stark testament to Moorthy’s legal acumen, (or lack thereof). As the Texan adage aptly puts it, he is “all hat and no cattle.”.
If the Malaysian courts, its election commission and more importantly its legal fraternity and courts have all overlooked Anwar's disqualification and legal disability under the constitution, so be it. It is not as if there is anyone of any repute within Malaysia's legal fraternity incluing its judges and lawyers who can now properly advise the Agong about retrospectively correcting the defect and the disability. It is a power the Agong has to exercise at his discretion.
Regardless of how the Courts there decide in this case, the Malaysian Legal Fraternity who were once so pro Anwar before they turned on him, would not know the difference of rght from wrong or the issues that arise in Anwar's eligibility to enter parlaiment as a respresentative of any constituecy. And neither would Waythamurthi. His pleadings in the Indian claim against the British were awful, embarrassing, disgraceful and an exhibition of all thats wrong with the Malaysian legal fraterity and people like him.
I raised this matter on social media and on other platforms the day Anwar Ibrahim announced his intention to contest the seat of Port Dickson (which he did) when he announced his candidacy for the seat of Port Dickson .
Here are my reasosn which unless I am corrected because in time Anwar may have successfully made an application to the Court of Criminal Appeal to have his convictions on Sodomy charges overturned. Here's why;
A pardon does not automatically quash or overturn a conviction. While a pardon releases a person from the penalties and consequences of a conviction, it doesn't erase the fact that the conviction occurred. A conviction can only be quashed by a Court of Criminal Appeal.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
What a Pardon Does:
A pardon, often granted under the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, is an act of executive clemency.
It can remove the legal penalties and consequences associated with a conviction, such as imprisonment or fines.
A pardon can signify that the individual has been rehabilitated and is worthy of forgiveness.
However, a pardon does not change the historical record of the conviction itself.
What a Pardon Doesn't Do:
A pardon does not erase the conviction from court records or criminal history.
A pardon does not mean the person is legally innocent of the offense.
A pardon does not automatically entitle the individual to compensation for wrongful conviction, although some jurisdictions may offer compensation in specific circumstances.
How a Conviction is Quashed:
A conviction can only be quashed (overturned) by a Court of Criminal Appeal.
This usually happens through an appeal process where the court reviews the evidence and legal arguments.
There is no evidencce to my knowledge of any application having been made by Anwar to have his conviction overturned, with the result that the conviction for which he was pardoned was overturned..
If the court finds that the conviction was unsafe or flawed, it can quash the conviction, effectively declaring the person not guilty. If it did not, Anwar's criminal record prohibits him fron cotestig the seat of Port Dickson or Tambun. His having succeeded in securing the right to contest the seat of Port Dickson or Tambun without challenge by the electoral commissioner is an indictment on the electoral commission, the llegal profession and the courts of Malaysia.
Upon further examination, the following observation merits consideration: Proponents of Anwar assert that the motion to disqualify him is time-barred, vexatious, and driven by political machinations, given Wathya Moorthy’s affiliations with Bersatu, a constituent of the Perikatan Nasional opposition coalition.
This assertion, however, constitutes not a defense but an implicit concession on Anwar's part. (Would be interesting to know who his lawyers are in this matter). It neither refutes the substance of the allegations nor contests the validity of the charge. Instead, it proffers a rationale that sidesteps substantive legal rebuttal, effectively amounting to a tacit admission on Anwar’s part.
Such maneuvering is emblematic of the Malaysian legal fraternity’s intricacies.
Notably, the applicant, Waytha Moorthy, has a documented history of submitting woefully inadequate, embarassing and frivolous legal arguments, as evidenced by his ill-fated drafting and representation of Malaysia’s indentured laborers and their descendants before a British court for compensation.
The outcome of that case serves as a stark testament to Moorthy’s legal acumen, (or lack thereof). As the Texan adage aptly puts it, he is “all hat and no cattle.”.
If the Malaysian courts, its election commission and more importantly its legal fraternity and courts have all overlooked Anwar's disqualification and legal disability under the constitution, so be it. It is not as if there is anyone of any repute within Malaysia's legal fraternity incluing its judges and lawyers who can now properly advise the Agong about retrospectively correcting the defect and the disability. It is a power the Agong has to exercise at his discretion.
Regardless of how the Courts there decide in this case, the Malaysian Legal Fraternity who were once so pro Anwar before they turned on him, would not know the difference of rght from wrong or the issues that arise in Anwar's eligibility to enter parlaiment as a respresentative of any constituecy. And neither would Waythamurthi. His pleadings in the Indian claim against the British were awful, embarrassing, disgraceful and an exhibition of all thats wrong with the Malaysian legal fraterity and people like him.
I raised this matter on social media and on other platforms the day Anwar Ibrahim announced his intention to contest the seat of Port Dickson (which he did) when he announced his candidacy for the seat of Port Dickson .
Here are my reasosn which unless I am corrected because in time Anwar may have successfully made an application to the Court of Criminal Appeal to have his convictions on Sodomy charges overturned. Here's why;
A pardon does not automatically quash or overturn a conviction. While a pardon releases a person from the penalties and consequences of a conviction, it doesn't erase the fact that the conviction occurred. A conviction can only be quashed by a Court of Criminal Appeal.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
What a Pardon Does:
A pardon, often granted under the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, is an act of executive clemency.
It can remove the legal penalties and consequences associated with a conviction, such as imprisonment or fines.
A pardon can signify that the individual has been rehabilitated and is worthy of forgiveness.
However, a pardon does not change the historical record of the conviction itself.
What a Pardon Doesn't Do:
A pardon does not erase the conviction from court records or criminal history.
A pardon does not mean the person is legally innocent of the offense.
A pardon does not automatically entitle the individual to compensation for wrongful conviction, although some jurisdictions may offer compensation in specific circumstances.
How a Conviction is Quashed:
A conviction can only be quashed (overturned) by a Court of Criminal Appeal.
This usually happens through an appeal process where the court reviews the evidence and legal arguments.
There is no evidencce to my knowledge of any application having been made by Anwar to have his conviction overturned, with the result that the conviction for which he was pardoned was overturned..
If the court finds that the conviction was unsafe or flawed, it can quash the conviction, effectively declaring the person not guilty. If it did not, Anwar's criminal record prohibits him fron cotestig the seat of Port Dickson or Tambun. His having succeeded in securing the right to contest the seat of Port Dickson or Tambun without challenge by the electoral commissioner is an indictment on the electoral commission, the llegal profession and the courts of Malaysia.