JC Ariff Yusof has a duty under the law to declare the facts which he declared and to ask the parties whether they would like him to recuse or otherwise. What he did was in accordance with established legal principles in respect of apparent bias and recusal (among others, the principles laid down in the Locobail and Pinochet cases). The disclosure made by him is required under the law and that was what he did. That was far from being a dereliction of his duity. In fact, it is commendable and should be the yardstick for judicial integrity in Malaysia and elsewhere.
On a different issue, JC Ariff had no choice other than to recuse himself. There was, in his judgement – and I agree with him – a real danger of bias in the form an apparent bias. If you must know, when there is a real danger of bias, a Judge MUST recuse himself even though both parties do not ask him to do so. This is because under the law, apparent bias cannot be waived by the parties.
The oft repeated phrase “justice must not only be done but must also manifestly be seen to be done” demands such action.

Some days I just dread going to court mate !

I would have thought that for a judge to recuse himself, one or both parties must make an application for the judge to do so for fear of likelihood of bias. And if the judge subsequently recused himself on such an application, everybody would have understood it.

Assuming that neither party had objected to him hearing the case, notwithstanding his past associations with either party, why then should he offered to recuse himself? It would be seen as a dereliction of judicial duty.

The case assumes great importance because Perak is in a complete mess because of the takeover and the Government could not function. Pending the settlement of the suit, the least he could do is to maintain the status quo pre- the takeover by issuing an interim injunction.

In a parliamentary democracy, the actual ruler is the electorate, and the electorate’s supremacy is manifested in the State Constitution. Apart from this written constitutional supremacy, we have next a Legislative supremacy which can amend the constitution albeit with a 2/3 majority. Therefore the electorate’s interest should be taken into primary consideration in this confusing state of affairs.

We really need tough minded judges who could make decisions, however unfavorable it may seem to either party, based purely on facts and law without regard to other extraneous factors.