Federal Court dismisses leave application to challenge EC redelineation in Malacca, Perak

Asila Jalil Asila Jalil Updated 8 years ago · Published on 19 Feb 2018 4:17PM · 3 Comments

Plaintiffs waiting outside the courtroom at the Federal Court today. Seven Malacca voters and two Perak MPs had sought to challenge the Election Commission's redelineation exercise in both states, in a bid rejected by the top court. – The Malaysian Insight pic by Kamal Ariffin, February 19, 2018.

THE Federal Court today dismissed a leave application by seven Malacca voters and two Perak MPs to challenge the Election Commission’s redelineation exercise in both states.

Chief Justice Md Raus Sharif said the decision was unanimous, and the federal constitution had entrusted the Dewan Rakyat as the body that could decide on the limitation of the constituencies.

“The court should not encroach on matters pertaining to the redelineation exercise, (or else) we will be seen as encroaching on the functions of other bodies.”

No order as to cost was made.

Besides Raus, others on the panel were Federal Court judges Azahar Mohamed and Aziah Ali.

Raus said the EC’s recommendations on the redelineation exercise were actions that did not bind parties.

“As such, they are not amenable to judicial review.”

In April last year, the seven Malacca voters had filed an application for a judicial review and a stay order against the EC, claiming that the proposed redelineation was unconstitutional.

The following month, the Malacca High Court granted the leave application for a judicial review.

However, in July, the Court of Appeal allowed the EC’s bid to set aside the high court decision.

The seven voters are Chan Tsu Chong, Nei Lih Xin, Azura Talib, Lim Kah Seng, Norhizam Hassan Baktee, Amir Khairudin and Amran Atan, representing voters in the Kota Melaka and Bukit Katil parliamentary seats.

Chan, who was present at court today as a representative, said he was disappointed by the Federal Court’s decision, and that the apex court should be the “ultimate body” deciding whether something was constitutional.

“The court, unfortunately, has decided that this is an issue it cannot decide on, and said this is because the federal constitution empowers Parliament.

“We respectfully disagree because it is a constitutional legal issue.”

The leave application by Ipoh Timur MP Thomas Su Keong Siong and Ipoh Barat MP M. Kulasegaran was also dismissed.

Kulasegaran urged Malaysians to come out in full force for the 14th general election.

“As MP, I will raise the matter when the bill is presented in Parliament.”

Previously, the two lawmakers had lost their appeal in the Court of Appeal against a high court decision disallowing them leave to proceed with a judicial review application over proposed recommendations for a redelineation exercise in their constituencies.

A three-man bench, led by justice Mohd Zawawi Salleh, had, in a unanimous decision, dismissed the appeal. – February 19, 2018.

Sign up or sign in here to comment.

Comments

  • The court is the place where the people could seek relief for fair play. Not everything can be said in a constitution, and what is said in the constitution can be applied to benefit one group against the others. It is for the court to decide whether the action taken by the EC lives up to the expectation of the constitution. The court would be running away from its duties if it chooses to use convenient excuses to avoid hard decision..

    Posted 8 years ago by Meng Kow Loh · Reply

  • With such a shameful judgment, this Federal Court panel led by CJ Raus has virtually issued a blank cheque to the EC to do what it likes with regards to its redelineation exercise, irrespective of its constitutionality.
    Then, what is there to stop the EC from stretching its current atrocious malapportionment of 1:5 to a mind-boggling 1:10?
    Has Malaysia not been humiliated enough with its current world-wide recognition as the country having the unfairest electoral boundary demarcation in the world that it must seek further notoriety as the world’s “super rogue” in electoral integrity?
    This judgment has conspicuously and perhaps deliberately misconstrued the issue at hand as asking the court to supplant parliament as the approving authority for EC’s redelineation proposal, whereas the true issue is the constitutionality of EC’s gravest violation imaginable of the universal principle of 1 man-1 vote-1 value principle as enshrined in Para 2(C) of the Thirteenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.
    And how could justices Raus Sharif, Azahar Mohamed and Aziah Ali justify their cowardly abdication of their judicial review power when it was only days ago that a Federal Court panel of 5 in its landmark judgment over the Indira Gandhi case declared the inviolability of its power of judicial review and its constitutional responsibility “to keep every organ and institution of the state within its legal boundary”?
    The Appellants should not hesitate to apply to the Federal Court to review this glaringly flawed judgment.

    Posted 8 years ago by Kim quek · Reply

  • HOPE this is not payoff for the renewal certificate

    Posted 8 years ago by Ramamurthi ram · Reply