July 2 — The phrase “the ball is round” captures what the beautiful game of football is: anything is possible, results are unpredictable.

Paraguay and Morocco beating Germany and Netherlands respectively is all about anything is possible as it is about results being unpredictable.

Courtroom litigation is also as unpredictable as the results in the round of 32 of the FIFA World Cup 2926.

No one predicted that the much-awaited decision in the prosecution’s appeal against Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman’s acquittal in his graft case involving Armada funds would be adjourned or postponed to July 13.

The Federal Court was scheduled to deliver its decision but adjourned it due to one of the Federal Court judges, Justice Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali, being ill.

Court of Appeal president Justice Abu Bakar Jais announced that the three-judge panel would not be delivering the decision due to the absence of Justice Che Mohd Ruzima.

“He (Justice Che Mohd Ruzima) is sick, and he is resting today and tomorrow.”

“Given the circumstances, we cannot deliver our decision today. It would not be right to deliver the decision without one member of the panel,” Justice Abu Bakar said on Tuesday (June 30). 

No one predicted that the much-awaited decision in the prosecution’s appeal against Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman’s acquittal in his graft case involving Armada funds would be adjourned or postponed to July 13. — File picture by Hari Anggara
No one predicted that the much-awaited decision in the prosecution’s appeal against Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman’s acquittal in his graft case involving Armada funds would be adjourned or postponed to July 13. — File picture by Hari Anggara

But the rules allow judgment to be delivered or pronounced in the absence of the judges. Rule 63 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995 says as follows:

Pronouncement of judgement

(1) The judgement of the Court shall be pronounced in open Court, either on the hearing of the appeal or at any subsequent time, of which notice shall be given by the Registrar to the parties to the appeal.

(2) Such judgement may be pronounced notwithstanding the absence of the Judges who composed the Court or any of them, and the judgement of any Judge not present may be read by a Judge of the Court or by the Registrar.

It must however be said that adjournment or postponement is in the absolute discretion of the court. As the majority in the Federal Court decision of Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abdul Razak v Public Prosecutor [2023] said:

“The law on adjournments is settled. It is this. The court has absolute discretion [on adjournments].”

So, if anything is possible on the football field, expect the unexpected in the courtroom.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.