Royal Pardons for Anwar and Najib: is every Royal Pardon really the same?

A royal pardon is not always what it seems. Nor are all pardons born equal. This essay sets Anwar’s legal clean slate against Najib’s trimmed sentence, and asks what that reveals about power, process, and the Malaysian Constitution. Along the way, it shows how two decisions of the Pardons Board produced strikingly different outcomes in law, politics, and public meaning – a tale of delays, denials, and enduring debates.

Read More

How should Professional Bodies punish multiple disciplinary offences? The principle of ‘Totality’

When a professional is found guilty of multiple misconducts, should a disciplinary body impose separate punishments for each offence, and then add them up, or just impose a single punishment for all? What if the offences occurred during the same incident, or at different times? How should the appropriate punishment be decided?

Read More

Why did India’s greatest legal mind refuse the Chief Justiceship?

For seven years, he was briefless. Politicians feared his moral courage. He refused the post of CJ. That post would have been his for five and a half years. Yet when Seervai spoke, the Constitution itself seemed to roar. This is the untold story of how one man's unwavering integrity shaped constitutional law across the Commonwealth—and why his final act on Republic Day 1996 was the perfect ending to ...

Read More

Is Anwar’s position as prime minister dissolved by Article 48(3) of the Constitution?

When the King’s ‘unconditional’ pardon does not explicitly use the magic words that, “We remove this person’s disqualification to stand in elections,” what happens? Can a ‘free’ pardon ‘automatically restore’ a politician’s rights to compete in an election? The answer lies hidden in the delicate rules of constitutional interpretation.

Read More

Can a court change the language of a written constitution?

No: only Parliament wields the power to amend the Constitution:(Article 159). Yet deeper currents flow beneath: MA63 protects East Malaysian rights. Any constitutional amendment requires their consent. And it is an international Treaty lodged with the UN. And timeless wisdom echoes: "Why fix what isn't broken?"

Read More

CJ’s Malta speech defines Democracy: a Government’s legitimacy depends on an Independent Judiciary

Can a judge speak truth about justice without facing negative consequences? Chief Justice Tengku Maimun’s Malta Speech exposed the deepest fractures. It revealed a constitutional cross-road by asking this question: "Will Malaysians choose constitutional rule, or arbitrary power?" What is your answer? It matters.

Read More

The Greatest Judges of All Time: the Titans who defied history

When history called, eleven judges answered: “Here I stand.” From Atkin’s neighbour principle to Dixon’s legalism, from Solomon’s wisdom to Bao Zheng’s integrity, from Abu Hanifa’s reasoning to Ginsburg’s equality crusade—these titans of justice dared to choose courage over comfort, principle over precedent. Their legacy lives in every courtroom where fairness still matters—proof that law can be humanity’s greatest tool for justice.

Read More